IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

DaeYoung KIM <dykim6@gmail.com> Thu, 17 August 2017 05:37 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 525F11323FD for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 22:37:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 VcboFFY0Zpz8 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 22:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg0-x242.google.com (mail-pg0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::242]) (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 8378C124E15 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 22:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-x242.google.com with SMTP id u185so8090013pgb.0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 22:37:23 -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=MH09ELZNP1eiJnNF/mY07JxJUQ9MocvD+u1AdT8OF3Y=; b=YgwbORYAgE2nQ56AXo5GtmG4GFOS1rNCYOpRSl5cibtb2zGn7UbTGXx8A8VJEViw1+ ECNem9PmTWNBhv96kU54MOPLbvtNVbv/11Hn/nd41aNIVtjXuksVRebbVhkwfi7yGg4m uq3FZxFYSna/GVeNmzXdaO8HlLOTOq9ljxRG/VuuIzkf8nf8ceKaszpuPByM8LGCK5tw 1hxh65/AqzZ31OTYjIbtlK7jv2iRZBNWnZoie2JN6Wo+ZFyz0wo4yUuau16XsM8J/D+W UolGq3KBeSWb67+9GL4UDfFABCkrqDYfkqEZ1oYbOaXpx57URNFZ//viJy3Slq97YSP5 CiLw==
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=MH09ELZNP1eiJnNF/mY07JxJUQ9MocvD+u1AdT8OF3Y=; b=pLtX61ljXW5vj59NMn08E9Yh4T6I+nxAZM97eAshjgy9vkKfuH6gdHfgwNwtkIUvAv t5wlQKWHDAQZfdXUuZXewuirj00XfzxlahGWl5QWrwRIuy9tjSBMO77MITS15w/21fgo kigJR8aNJtosEtrU3TgnAJSLnB4Tw78VQHUdP5aqn9qVV37+WMwJQmiIX5u7RFPLl1sh W7TwhFhwwVuU4u0S4c9Pq5JtMskmevYQeWo13SPe1CgkppTulabqcbS7rH7YznWRyGzp tXbl57hXw0rHpDX4AVU++Y2sJ7o8FioK4Qqfo07eIXnV0KS5TyibaWil4cX+AnVQ10xA GL7g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5hGPMCBjHGN6IUOGxqa5G1KDOLBsvv6XyMSuRGFt9A05usaC02J +K4rgqAkXxDr1Q==
X-Received: by 10.99.121.1 with SMTP id u1mr3805468pgc.217.1502948242935; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 22:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [100.68.118.228] ([39.7.58.87]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f88sm4810010pff.74.2017.08.16.22.37.21 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 16 Aug 2017 22:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: DaeYoung KIM <dykim6@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (14G60)
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2y-0vZPQmr6COq6363ZAA0UfhzdToYocXVEbLwwiuzWYw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 14:37:19 +0900
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, Simon Hobson <linux@thehobsons.co.uk>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8630F222-BEE1-4F68-8C1F-7941C5901F3D@gmail.com>
References: <CAO42Z2wJBCo1yjguWSy-jzSvndeZTPgtN71FfdEhvqrVAUhZUA@mail.gmail.com> <9bd9f886-f53b-109f-d998-1d4c7adaf3b1@gmail.com> <B6A257C9-7E8A-452D-9C0F-0B10A31990CB@thehobsons.co.uk> <796A0ED0-0F58-43FA-9F81-D4D736A35F3B@steffann.nl> <BD3B4153-2EEF-4BFB-832D-D126A75AEC11@thehobsons.co.uk> <CAN-Dau2jzbQPuE5diEz-XzfRBHY=O1znE8hfy8P-Eee=MVwC_w@mail.gmail.com> <7C6C4FCC-26B9-493D-9992-4663DE6EB9CE@jisc.ac.uk> <3A69468C-98E4-4631-A52F-3D8772646EEE@consulintel.es> <20170807110746.GG45648@Space.Net> <CAO42Z2xXXjKUZ8qQY+b1NgDagX2ZJkqL5gieD+_js59ucp0EMw@mail.gmail.com> <20170810055819.GQ45648@Space.Net> <CAO42Z2xtfsYbw+Wf=ZjyFCmnDbhL17QCkWWRJ7F1+BgGCRiipg@mail.gmail.com> <51268C23-40F4-4476-9025-A1DD3BA37BC3@thehobsons.co.uk> <CAKD1Yr0uBU-LczaZJ5SdNpb_FpB0qfZJ0kNnr=gEviD+F3DTZw@mail.gmail.com> <85DFAB58-149C-405E-A497-3CBB497828B4@gmail.com> <dec51b5e-09dc-6784-4edd-19392fdfbef1@gmail.com> <CAFgODJemiTEnHD1_Y1xfD0La=8PLAaZuNTGC27KMbKWasuEXmQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2zh5HZGY=rxq9BcTFRbS+_tUWyJhm9p_JahL5M6hhfDgw@mail.gmail.com> <D34A7642-6E70-4FD7-9D71-D1C62D561FC4@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2y-0vZPQmr6COq6363ZAA0UfhzdToYocXVEbLwwiuzWYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/OA_27ef-J8DWXaLWZe73696LasQ>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] 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: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 05:37:25 -0000


Sent from my iPhone

> On 17 Aug 2017, at 14:07, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:

> That is exactly why IID values matter. There is no hiding what they
> are referring to. They're always referring to a individual end point,
> there is no ambiguity.

Yes,

> Externally you cannot really tell if /64s are being used. If you
> assume they are, you still cannot tell whether the /64 is assigned to
> a link shared between a set of hosts, or assigned to an individual
> host.

No, I cannot,

> There is no such ambiguity with a single 128 bit IPv6 address. It's an
> end-point identifier.

Yes.

> Have you read
> 
> "Security and Privacy Considerations for IPv6 Address Generation Mechanisms"
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7721
> 
> ?
> 

Yes. What do I miss?

>>   - What's the point of mandating 64 bits for IIDs when behaviors internal to or behind a /64 are not observable from outside anyhow?
>> 
> 
> Urm, are you assuming NAT?

No, I'm not.

> Source addresses are visible to the
> outside, because there isn't

??

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email