Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Thu, 16 February 2017 09:54 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@gmail.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 299B31299E8; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 01:54:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.999, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 FbAY_iqovh4a; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 01:54:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua0-x229.google.com (mail-ua0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E3D61294E2; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 01:54:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua0-x229.google.com with SMTP id y9so7406390uae.2; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 01:54:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+NSFFdjXo86szqFitD2jwW6/6qYMH0H+rJPEb6gzdhM=; b=ETN+sHSaPxPGRtEV6bs4UjIN5aU9Bx4Lr/uKPaLernk2gddl6wYAE2tUi8KBYRFd6d KCojRkQ0OfD9GRdazLJTKydrvCLffL/Aj67G1pp8TDHbdRqRrnuHZeEZ4OQm5Jg/o5NF lIIWX9xkKMagc45x14L6VEAzMWCl8e9V+N4s8eGsT+JH9TFvFGT6ujzEzJWkDyAeUG3y Us4ztAKdH24tdHF7MwvKeFqKne4u1PAqRqwuDLQXxmmdzwTe56d+xWjDIjIreMzSbpSE v3YAH+HbwYaubB4IXMiLG2QasUHfBDRYJFdHBUv3rckxUmCdAXPROluRSE894YDlKNez BBlw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+NSFFdjXo86szqFitD2jwW6/6qYMH0H+rJPEb6gzdhM=; b=c+8whNZnepdnxev3aQqYaaVSaONmsLe6J2kYoIThS9LP8SCtIuwL4nC1lF0QdaHIGt EWfrbif9SpRAhW/XtWaHR5NWu0gwzbmLWjSXvAktkCI69sXLO46M9g5dVv9f+U9yMe9u LnUmPmuboCP9y8uRKez4WZOu16UEDA3PKRamOPl73hbRQJrS8TDw62hHh7UB6P3P4u/M Ua1/pifxuobl+poFGPzbRB7glumcTZheHFbBaVIuL/6hwY2dIoIfC8Bb7rrip2+BaPin ooVzjkoEHvVUmvYOLBgWzKMoOC5OHA3/QyKYX8riqxB0rYPZpTOJu5P0BQ+/zPXc3ZFX 81gg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39ksFa2pZOg/AyeI1awI135xyhavAi9L8Hfw5GFOOBSy7rGb1sjR/SFQB33jR3hzBYJJgfHMVU2eyPW7OA==
X-Received: by 10.159.40.225 with SMTP id d88mr242889uad.98.1487238839189; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 01:53:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.159.38.2 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 01:53:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.159.38.2 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 01:53:58 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <m2k28qebw2.wl-randy@psg.com>
References: <148599306190.18700.14784486605754128729.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAN-Dau0kDiSNXsyq9-xEdS5mzLt-K+MYHqoV8aC8jDVREw8OPQ@mail.gmail.com> <8e5c950a-0957-4323-670f-f3d07f40b4df@gmail.com> <05FD5283-9A15-4819-8362-5E6B2416D617@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr3B+dw83B0+26oUqdVJE==wHUBwoWzfWBJep8f+=uM8xQ@mail.gmail.com> <d9dc153a-61a8-5976-7697-ce1ecc9c8f3f@gmail.com> <4AF83EE6-6109-491F-BE66-114724BB197B@employees.org> <m2y3x6eutl.wl-randy@psg.com> <B76B6864-5827-4AC1-9BF7-8FFF069C10F1@employees.org> <m2lgt6ed7j.wl-randy@psg.com> <4514E052-25C1-4C85-AB1D-0B53FD9DA0E1@employees.org> <m2k28qebw2.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 20:53:58 +1100
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2xiS2NM+oKQCG8XwB3HFMMKoFOJBk1P=EpaabBbdggc1A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c122be8b4c8980548a2c6e1
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/vGlH7uWR5fpVvGc7qh9L19qlQYI>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@ietf.org, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, 6man-chairs@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 16 Feb 2017 09:54:01 -0000

On 16 Feb. 2017 8:14 pm, "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com>; wrote:

> "something useful" makes it subjective.

some of us try to operate networks.  useful is what customers pay us to
do.

> SLAAC, NPT66, ILNP are the biggest one that I can think of.

slaac is real, used, and is useful in some environments that customers
want.


One of the benefits of a /64 is that IIDs within it can be sparsely
distributed, making device discovery by unsolicited inbound address probing
ineffective.

I think a router having these sorts of sparse IIDs in its addresses would
be a useful mitigation against router control plane attacks, such as a syn
attack on port 179 from the Internet.


Regards,
Mark.


> Trivial to make SLAAC work with variable length prefixes of course.

64 for slaac is fine.

for the rest, we went to cidr over a decade back, when folk scammed mo
out of 8+8.

randy

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------