IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-collink-v6ops-ent64pd-01.txt

Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> Wed, 21 December 2022 07:40 UTC

Return-Path: <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.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 84A85C14CF19; Tue, 20 Dec 2022 23:40:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Td1EMlI27nqf; Tue, 20 Dec 2022 23:40:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FD88C14CE20; Tue, 20 Dec 2022 23:40:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mscpeml100002.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.201]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4NcQJX2zg4z6H7FG; Wed, 21 Dec 2022 15:37:32 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.142) by mscpeml100002.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.75) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.34; Wed, 21 Dec 2022 10:40:47 +0300
Received: from mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com ([7.188.26.142]) by mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com ([7.188.26.142]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.034; Wed, 21 Dec 2022 10:40:47 +0300
From: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
CC: V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "xiaom@google.com" <xiaom@google.com>, "draft-collink-v6ops-ent64pd@ietf.org" <draft-collink-v6ops-ent64pd@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-collink-v6ops-ent64pd-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHZEDnOF5bVdeWrNUmrOPEmMfer3q5u1MkAgAdZ2gCAADVDMIAA1HSigADEeMA=
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2022 07:40:47 +0000
Message-ID: <ad97ae3bd5e84d23aee7698a84708b18@huawei.com>
References: <167107554671.48477.568330207202509840@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAFU7BATp=gEB3S8AzhCYDMN3fzLQrYY9pzcWJ=LQnrjC9bRKEA@mail.gmail.com> <Y5sy2ikgQEWSnCsM@Space.Net> <CAKD1Yr0EchmQ11eKCB4AfEJaG7_aFDDv_bavYJY4Zb3iDmhALg@mail.gmail.com> <4277d4e5a962400f8438e8f01c884654@huawei.com> <CAO42Z2y_SWybfLQE3g5a-kVieY05XSxaKTv-UG8kvfbYzJLH6w@mail.gmail.com> <12d95e0b-7264-2fcc-d131-1eca2a72d4e1@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <12d95e0b-7264-2fcc-d131-1eca2a72d4e1@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.81.189.73]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/IZk7-DTQkkx4FYZ_9VnlyEcVwLw>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-collink-v6ops-ent64pd-01.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Wed, 21 Dec 2022 07:40:54 -0000

Hi Brian,
Pay attention that for this solution (prefix per host) the different field should be randomized. It is part of the prefix because IID randomization would not help at all.
If somebody claims that 48 bits are needed. Then it is effectively a request that the prefix should be /64+48=112bits. (host size is below 64k addresses)
RFC 7421 speculates that 40 bits may be enough. Then the prefix should be /64+40=108bits. (host size is below 16m addresses)
IMHO: both are fine.
Eduard
-----Original Message-----
From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 10:50 PM
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>; Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>; Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; xiaom@google.com; draft-collink-v6ops-ent64pd@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-collink-v6ops-ent64pd-01.txt

On 20-Dec-22 23:07, Mark Smith wrote:

> Have you considered the privacy address implications of only having 32 bits to work with instead of 64?

There's a reason that https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7421.html#section-4.5 suggests /80 as the reasonable limit for privacy purposes. The issue is making it highly unlikely (and therefore prohibitively expensive) to find an IID by a scanning attack. At /96, the search space is about 4 billion. Given the number of Internet users in the world, and possible applicability of the birthday paradox, that isn't a safe value. (I can't expect to find *your* IID, but I can hope to find *somebody's* IID.) At /80, the search space is about 281 trillion.

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email