Re: [v6ops] SLAAC renum: Problem Statement & Operational workarounds

Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com> Sun, 27 October 2019 20:21 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 536EF12006B for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 13:21:28 -0700 (PDT)
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, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, SYSADMIN=1] autolearn=no 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 w31u_F38FUh6 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 13:21:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C491120052 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 13:21:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) (Smail #157) id m1iOp2T-0000F0C; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 21:21:25 +0100
Message-Id: <m1iOp2T-0000F0C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: v6ops@ietf.org
From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <CAO42Z2yQ_6PT3nQrXGD-mKO1bjsW6V3jZ_2kNGC2x586EMiNZg@mail.gmail.com> <B53CE471-C6E8-4DC1-8A72-C6E23154544F@fugue.com> <m1iOk6q-0000IyC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <855496CB-BF7E-41E6-B273-41C4AA771E41@fugue.com> <3E4C671B-A03E-4A3F-A68B-5849BDCC6267@delong.com> <FB1EEF1D-1D5D-4DEE-B433-ADC3904D7917@fugue.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 27 Oct 2019 15:46:13 -0400 ." <FB1EEF1D-1D5D-4DEE-B433-ADC3904D7917@fugue.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2019 21:21:24 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/1BFaU9rTUQIVwwpVveePffWCdQU>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] SLAAC renum: Problem Statement & Operational workarounds
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2019 20:21:28 -0000

>    Hostile hosts happen when you get hit with malware, e.g.
>    ransomware.  Being resilient in situations like this is important,
>    even if they aren't all that common, because the cost of
>    non-resilience is so high.

As far as I know, nobody (in a home situation) is worried about malware
performing ARP spoofing.

If there is a variant of SEND that is both easy to deploy and can effectively
prevent denial of service by a malicious local host, then it is certainly
worth discussing. But I still think it should a separate discussion and
not as part of dealing with flash renumbering.