Re: [v6ops] "The Internet is for End Users" (Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07.txt)

[Lee Howard <[e-mail]>]

On 8/16/17, 10:51 PM, "v6ops on behalf of Mark Smith"
<[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

>So how do we evaluate what is the best solution? What are the criteria to
>use?
>
>This discussion is going in circles because I think people have
>different opinions on what the criteria are.
>
>Mark Nottingham has been working on the following draft,
>
>"The Internet is for End Users"
>https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-for-the-users-05.txt
>
>which says that what is best for the end-user needs should trump any
>other parties' needs. I entirely agree.

I disagree with that characterization of the draft. I worked with Mark to
try to make it clear that it does NOT say “end users uber alles."
  Our goal is not to avoid all potential harm to or constraint of end
  users; rather, it's to give guidance in a particular situation - when
  we've identified a conflict between the needs of end users and
  another stakeholder (e.g., a network operator), and need a
  "tiebreaker", we should err on the side of finding a solution that
  doesn't harm end users.

“Doesn’t harm” is different than “best for,” and various interests compete.
Of course, this document is still a draft, and we cannot call is a
consensus document.

>
>I've thought there are the following 3 high level end-user criteria to
>use for evaluation:
>
>* Available and Reliable
>
>* Secure and Private
>
>* Cost Effective

Good/Fast/Cheap?


>
>- Secure and Private: Yes, negatively. It is practical to scan 32 bit
>address spaces e.g., shodan.io. 64 bit random addresses are effective
>at mitigating device discovery via unsolicited packet probing, 32 bit
>random addresses would not be.

As I read RFC7707 "Network Reconnaissance in IPv6 Networks” I think you
may be overestimating that value.

Lee