IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07.txt

DY Kim <dykim6@gmail.com> Fri, 04 August 2017 08:42 UTC

Return-Path: <dykim6@gmail.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 D3BB4126B6D for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 01:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=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 k4B7_sMmQ8rW for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 01:42:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg0-x234.google.com (mail-pg0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::234]) (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 8252E131CB5 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 01:42:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-x234.google.com with SMTP id v77so5407046pgb.3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 04 Aug 2017 01:42:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=U8GLttcXNBxwu7voQRX5EMIkT85dhl/0jvUVgQKgOXw=; b=I7oTDe0sSoFGCUDPW54yncfbb46qmKb7c4DgXewUOcNYu9GrghJQVjN8beVm00Uv0B qAxiRddvx+cRPNIb8fHOnJ/khTLTi2z5W559hsEosJCkwQUutYO2UV2xBWpu5/CGYw+C nhCWpyHsNbK5xfZ/xftlRGn6RrNZOs4hG5gqdNE5/NASdsXOQ/aV9kWG4IeM7EOrcKV2 PjvjUynhnPa5Ugd29Vy6LI7CyUnpQDM1N6bu45XSoC1QSZyxpfvMCcl4S5+iBukQ1fuD jxmeQu6SNCfa5ZVF0jfdJorWoUrbVEfBxgKuCHCTXCqE7LX5nan0O7xShVGd5+EwznQR mYZg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=U8GLttcXNBxwu7voQRX5EMIkT85dhl/0jvUVgQKgOXw=; b=WlGu6YehKZ4DiF5Bw2yREObckasA3GsqcOyh3OoPPykoU8P5xmmKXwElE26Ow8wSzz XHJ7r4WFUm2qwas+2DLJN3F+nvEFnkc3EjjaqsGhEX0wbkHJdDAGFuqiT1RwxJNG9ILa k9dUTVLoKZQYS0f8bqkvuiVPq17JWiwHWJ4hjGVMIRawu2WOJjZcyoKaZUSgS97iTgYP ZerV+wqPVV1ZlCaj0cjHSPLnjkmAJeMuS5kHf+RzHhARtA0NMRClpHS6lr8j6b1e4Mo4 hKsR0C67cm+Im+5cBOjk72UwS1WPPaWDM1Hjj+UOoKctU3PdjOis73s7oeQjvA4lnXBa W6Vg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw110znjyihnwgrQ5fQUJTnKkdMcG8RgS3l/Krq0YZTdkAv0FFa63x H25F0G9Km4uQRA==
X-Received: by 10.99.100.134 with SMTP id y128mr1503318pgb.365.1501836129849; Fri, 04 Aug 2017 01:42:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [112.167.24.200] ([112.167.24.200]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s18sm1974878pfg.166.2017.08.04.01.42.06 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 04 Aug 2017 01:42:08 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: DY Kim <dykim6@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2zLgw3cYapf=1y9pm4cWMZZ32DT2ryfPb6BGUFjCfmrMg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2017 17:42:04 +0900
Cc: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6950ACA0-CAB9-4890-ABE3-0ECA84C58251@gmail.com>
References: <150148445751.17707.15424999122129322815@ietfa.amsl.com> <E6AC9174-3D6E-4FAD-B84B-B7E58FB149BC@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2xEs6RauD6Oo_NbqOh+FRVAu3NuveewSvRx7g1hS2-ToQ@mail.gmail.com> <94BC4E17-D490-4F50-9E99-2AAA081CD43C@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2zR_bWPqOHM7-RNsPX78np45UV=J67YD5gbpoCPUaLkAQ@mail.gmail.com> <FB14455C-F00E-49A4-936F-03BD44C4D42C@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2zLgw3cYapf=1y9pm4cWMZZ32DT2ryfPb6BGUFjCfmrMg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/AE2rP74Yl_k-fQdYPU0tMCG3zSs>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 04 Aug 2017 08:42:12 -0000

in line...

--------
Regards,
DY








> On 4 Aug 2017, at 17:18, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Why specifically might you like to assign /96s? What benefit do you get?

Now that a device (can I say ‘node’?) trackable by its (/64) unique prefix, the privacy of the node might be compromised.

To combat this, you might want to regularly randomize/refresh the prefix for a given node to secure privacy from eavesdroppers, except that the privacy is not secured to the entity distributing the prefixes.

For enough randomization in that case, I might like to have enough (say 48) additional bits for the node prefix, rendering 48+48=96; 48 is shorter than 64, but should be large enough for randomization for privacy.

> No. /64s as the subnet size as been the common edge subnet/IID
> boundary for almost 20 years since RFC2373.

In this I-D, /64s are not assigned to ‘subnets' but to ‘nodes' in a shared network.

Or do you mean what RFC 4291bis really wanted say was the boundary for 'any prefix'/IID is at 64th bit?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email