IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Giving up security & privacy when manually configuring addresses - rfc4291bis text (Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00)

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-4@u-1.phicoh.com> Thu, 08 June 2017 11:31 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b7900FA3D@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E737112E04F for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 04:31:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gNkUCPgZaxp0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 04:31:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B8EB12DFDB for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 04:31:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #130) id m1dIveo-0000EPC; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 13:31:18 +0200
Message-Id: <m1dIveo-0000EPC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Giving up security & privacy when manually configuring addresses - rfc4291bis text (Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00)
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-4@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b7900FA3D@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <CAO42Z2ziUZnK+n2f9N_Xvb5TZBppApXgNSmDsRLxaT1_taLvFw@mail.gmail.com> <59392678.1080000@foobar.org> <CAO42Z2ztuFW_jfATLS8e47ANM7_WaCr1GbfLzc_=-79ibHtrsg@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 8 Jun 2017 21:16:37 +1000 ." <CAO42Z2ztuFW_jfATLS8e47ANM7_WaCr1GbfLzc_=-79ibHtrsg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 13:31:17 +0200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/v9E9HUGJkMYqOlgRqeOBl3UoAPs>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 11:31:24 -0000

>Next you'll say that stripes have no value to zebras and camouflage
>has no value to armies.

I find this a bizar discussion. We already have plenty of options for providing
nodes with addresses that have lots of randomness.

Some operators don't care about that feature and would like to be able to use
those bits elsewhere.

So if you want to make it hard to discover a node, assign a /64 to a link and
use put a random value in the remaining bits.

That should not proclude other people from using /120 prefixes and numbering 
nodes 1, 2, 3.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email