IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Are we competitive?

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Mon, 15 August 2022 14:36 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 62168C1524BE for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Aug 2022 07:36:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] 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 VPY6bI8YTVBu for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Aug 2022 07:36:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2200FC1524B9 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Aug 2022 07:36:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPV6:2800:810:464:f13:6623:ffb1:f7bf:cc40] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:f13:6623:ffb1:f7bf:cc40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E4CBC28027F; Mon, 15 Aug 2022 14:36:19 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <e996f1a3-35f6-577b-c921-2b7ac79cbf5a@si6networks.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2022 11:36:17 -0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>, Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
Cc: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <CAM5+tA9tOGuy8scXStxOTzWOwG_zvDHx4Hi5CwkGiYmzNLOvqw@mail.gmail.com> <9687af1f59a6492f8353ade4d920fa95@huawei.com> <CAM5+tA8UF-3ZHkE0npZ0r5sDQ+FudTSPhpWns1BsPCk=NecX+Q@mail.gmail.com> <7e4606c4534c49a593863bda870b6e63@huawei.com> <3f138b03-940a-e83a-6c6e-6039506b6e4b@gont.com.ar> <10f89b7cbe784881bd22b4af81577aa6@huawei.com> <CAN-Dau0nz0TouDnz5pei0MCmTzSbP8q+gHLx1m0sxX0hsuPX3w@mail.gmail.com> <b9f33aa499b043bb90ff926731db9739@huawei.com> <b885bdd4-d837-1eda-9614-36c76190d920@gont.com.ar> <a6975472445f49018abab153fa61b399@huawei.com> <YvoaJ+IJdl/VXYLj@Space.Net> <1cdf7569a11d43e2b4fdd8675b657e42@huawei.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
In-Reply-To: <1cdf7569a11d43e2b4fdd8675b657e42@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/R9ayokpOAEPDsyx5LKKMFiDrX04>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Are we competitive?
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: Mon, 15 Aug 2022 14:36:26 -0000

Eduard,

On 15/8/22 07:37, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
> Hence, temporary addresses are needed.

There's no solution that is needed: that's like putting the cart before 
the horse.

IOW, state what you want to do, and then use the toolbox to achieve your 
goal.


> They would preserve the flexibility: would be no need to punch the hole in the stateful NAT for stable IIDs.

In order for the stable/temporary approach to be fully successful, you 
need to be able to block incoming connections to the stable addresses.

As noted in draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-addressing-considerations, that's 
non-trivial nowadays.


> Mandatory randomization for all IIDs looks like not a good choice.

Not sure what you mean here.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: F242 FF0E A804 AF81 EB10 2F07 7CA1 321D 663B B494

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email