Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-addr-availability

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Wed, 08 July 2015 18:17 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDFFC1A6F29 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:17:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.094
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.094 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 LQpDgRYl7Syi for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [IPv6:2001:9e0:803::6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3A601A6F2B for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:17:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0257045; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 20:17:44 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:date :date:in-reply-to:from:from:subject:subject:mime-version :content-type:content-type:received:received; s=mail; t= 1436379462; bh=PPUE2LbRU82cagg82IJS8ytAdDLAOu4WYqgyMiWhVDA=; b=X 8dCHaBswVxMJvaZIXfNU1gsCpG8OFavUo0AUkQiv5NSDZLAh2J4w5fd9Jkmv5UO7 hwR152y/L4VpAv3xCzQo+jQwLyMHRug4O2ChnU4yDHMJDSIRFyeUrYTQXfbmySu8 FpUh/Li9YEKZhDI/g7p8g+KcOYwv0VE2nh0/y9pb/Y=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id HcpsfAe5c7Yf; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 20:17:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [IPv6:2a00:8640:1::3444:768f:8c07:6fc] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:8640:1:0:3444:768f:8c07:6fc]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F22D834; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 20:17:41 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\))
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
In-Reply-To: <CAAedzxqBuTbieaFMpWVFSk5J=ktQEM2FWFyP_PV0EGuWs_5=yQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 20:17:41 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <521C7217-12C3-48D9-897F-B3EC4D2C30EA@steffann.nl>
References: <201507061147.t66Bl1AE028312@irp-lnx1.cisco.com> <9290D0D1-062A-4DE0-A437-9A5F5045ACAC@gmail.com> <39F63B55-977F-4B84-8B55-52E2F0B1A851@cisco.com> <CAAedzxqBuTbieaFMpWVFSk5J=ktQEM2FWFyP_PV0EGuWs_5=yQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/eCqqONn964OAPb23CXu5essK7_A>
Cc: "draft-colitti-v6ops-host-addr-availability@tools.ietf.org" <draft-colitti-v6ops-host-addr-availability@tools.ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-addr-availability
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 08 Jul 2015 18:17:50 -0000

Hi,

> Some of this could also serve as input to motivate a SAVI document
> defining a basic logging protocol.
> 
> I still believe that if there where a trivially deployable logging
> methodology that captured
> 
>    {IP address, timestamp, rfc7039#section-3.2 binding context}
> 
> tuples, or even the full data structure entry described in
> rfc6620#section-3.1, then the auditing objectives could be well and
> truly met.
> 
> I think this is still one large unmet need.  (not necessarily a v6ops
> matter, perhaps)

I agree. Having such a logging mechanism would take away one of the arguments against SLAAC, which would be a good thing.

Cheers,
Sander