IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] privacy point re. unsolicited NA / router neighbor cache

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Tue, 23 July 2019 13:33 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
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 309DE12028E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 06:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=steffann.nl
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 oahOnPFTOrpP for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 06:32:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [83.247.10.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 164D6120281 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 06:32:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F3D24B; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:32:55 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:in-reply-to:date:date:subject:subject :mime-version:content-type:content-type:message-id:from:from :received:received; s=mail; t=1563888771; bh=vV8pfASp/Jpzk65JmGW EbjDyq3QAw3iWEn/lirTNJ4U=; b=eNZ5MZ24rcE/7V6wZvRZimtGJtaFgA1YNA8 tXAe+RElEDmKL+PxLDWkvzcXDiZVvKW0YX3aZwT7CxsH1SQerG7JR/ZYh91g9ki2 F6vlGV7LqsfXF3dmkIanFX+HcBY/EGt3/Hajs5LPAF/yweP7b1NRScVnqruTgN/3 6U8dIWlg=
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 bVenLnftGzF1; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:32:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:e0c8:ace:ff75:2302] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:e0c8:ace:ff75:2302]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6024849; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:32:48 +0200 (CEST)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Message-Id: <9740316D-61DE-4BF4-87C2-5BCA5575BC27@steffann.nl>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3B9BF320-D524-41A9-A7BA-2CB44BE7610D"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:32:47 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20190723070141.GG60824@Space.Net>
Cc: David Lamparter <equinox@diac24.net>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
To: Gert Döring <gert@space.net>
References: <20190722213727.GI34551@eidolon.nox.tf> <CAO42Z2zn-V9HrKGDC_api7BE4Sy6jmcrfKR7nbnSrHA5NpxYjQ@mail.gmail.com> <20190723000049.GJ34551@eidolon.nox.tf> <20190723070141.GG60824@Space.Net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/gDCE9-LC4kIDQEvJllL-mWrFzKY>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] privacy point re. unsolicited NA / router neighbor cache
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: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 13:33:07 -0000

Hi,

> The general idea that on-link multicast is a positive aspect of IPv6
> is nice, but wrong.

Well, a little bit :)

There is still the advantage that the NIC can apply its MAC address filter. L2 destination FF:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF can't be filtered there, but 33:33:* can :)

Cheers,
Sander

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email