IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] SLAAC renum: Problem Statement & Operational workarounds

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Sun, 27 October 2019 19:46 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 326EC120046 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 12:46:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 svbQs4yqSgWM for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 12:46:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82f.google.com (mail-qt1-x82f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82f]) (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 1BCAA120052 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 12:46:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82f.google.com with SMTP id l3so1013910qtp.2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 12:46:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=01U9pKntwqrkWlg/9/QD65T0ISNqkgl0ibXlTL8oKsQ=; b=h9yJ4ctTvUUGBB4s1P6bm293a4PUirzFH36N/poXTkJyD4VnpgrvBqaAIY9e1W5IZo CwgnKbwvtEi6EC5Pd/yDpab0PlsKIsjCPramGskP24gh33Z7hPWtaAaSmVGW2enTIbmq wo6eI226VS1j7Tp+XpY5rDie5fPst8cg2U8/RyOdkZA1I3rNmVpk89gE60Wr3VTyrtwJ xgkHpY1tJp2q2XYf2por1aVJjuV1Pa+60mokxM44eE5E8rIL4kXKUv9lk/i6XdCzh6pp vNpVROBx/qa98+8lKq2GJbx2hYG6Mo16ObBU4CHjUH5AZDzoijGsi7XzPaCE7wHM2FGi ZuPA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=01U9pKntwqrkWlg/9/QD65T0ISNqkgl0ibXlTL8oKsQ=; b=Bre0EYRUkihelwggmaN5FBvg41XDxFjU37BWlOMffffYUxpFwDRkz1GIY8rNHyFV7r Z9FhY83TmeiAA+dzyhgUGQRmndfhAQlR42Ik+hDst7GCDpIaqSQsnAE/FzZdVz/kENSg dUDoxaVl0mI9hOoG2oJgZCG1P9eJkVy2tGoL1JgCMyCyBdWY6uZEbW7KYXDZAMSi3IYv F5zGLDNrsSalctaDKsRiR4sP0LZpM/0S3B9/sPEytxCGbONXOQP4tZs25FjOWJeJI99W pvvQhm3ZVC+BlXIDqivUc1Ty+fZXPgxZU6JBUyQiTcu8GsSHJEtL9xMP2AHAZfEoOGgd 4PjQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWxPKMF9vLjUI4i07FDgVRU9yCjDRYdl49lRjzi3Y95DBUHGyON ottGxAnsFsx8nMAr4ggT1YG/Voz/1tp+sQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyXqTgU8Z/Zm9nv8YV437qAtSQkGVKGqmIrxkgobAEldsJJgvdRZcy2VTz9KM4O4Yf7/R/T0g==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:17ce:: with SMTP id r14mr9088380qtk.301.1572205576222; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 12:46:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18b:300:36ee:a0de:ef21:f9e9:1e01? ([2601:18b:300:36ee:a0de:ef21:f9e9:1e01]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z8sm941588qki.27.2019.10.27.12.46.15 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 27 Oct 2019 12:46:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <FB1EEF1D-1D5D-4DEE-B433-ADC3904D7917@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0BBC7736-B38E-47B0-9B8F-EFC49C18505F"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3601.0.4\))
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2019 15:46:13 -0400
In-Reply-To: <3E4C671B-A03E-4A3F-A68B-5849BDCC6267@delong.com>
Cc: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com>, v6ops@ietf.org
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
References: <CAO42Z2yQ_6PT3nQrXGD-mKO1bjsW6V3jZ_2kNGC2x586EMiNZg@mail.gmail.com> <B53CE471-C6E8-4DC1-8A72-C6E23154544F@fugue.com> <m1iOk6q-0000IyC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <855496CB-BF7E-41E6-B273-41C4AA771E41@fugue.com> <3E4C671B-A03E-4A3F-A68B-5849BDCC6267@delong.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3601.0.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/ZML9J1fmA99Xywb6fLA6tpCrsdk>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] SLAAC renum: Problem Statement & Operational workarounds
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sun, 27 Oct 2019 19:46:20 -0000

On Oct 27, 2019, at 3:35 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
> In the vast majority of situations where I would expect hostile hosts to be likely to be on LAN, I don’t think I’d be using
> SLAAC for address assignment in the first place. Most likely, I’d want stateful DHCP in such instances.

Hostile hosts happen when you get hit with malware, e.g. ransomware.   Being resilient in situations like this is important, even if they aren’t all that common, because the cost of non-resilience is so high.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email