Re: [v6ops] Interesting problems with using IPv6

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Sat, 13 September 2014 20:05 UTC

Return-Path: <owen@delong.com>
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 4B7DC1A00D4 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Sep 2014 13:05:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.643
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.643 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.652, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham
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 9Xk6VKGhhya3 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Sep 2014 13:05:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A380A1A00AD for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Sep 2014 13:05:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2620::930:0:855:e155:2c81:9ecc] ([IPv6:2620:0:930:0:855:e155:2c81:9ecc]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id s8DK3dKb009883 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sat, 13 Sep 2014 13:03:40 -0700
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.3 owen.delong.com s8DK3dKb009883
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1410638620; bh=pLg5xmyHcL42J09pEEkCf5NIgVg=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To; b=Rqbw2Ihlt+jVK0920/XSG00AeBoBbN3q2gIhCTNsKYzdf3I0WvJtVcPmTW0GDm/Nq 81ggeKuK5BF01KPtU8onlU69Rih4kS8nRDx1JahK6umhM/Wbfp2Vv12Rbpv6FQq/ri lVOTuDj3UTgWW2xMkCxyDDp2LxM/BUFtVMBgO5DI=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11D257)
In-Reply-To: <4F718CBC-F926-4A37-B9ED-13078AF4926B@steffann.nl>
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 13:03:36 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <65C14298-7D07-4A2E-93EA-610C78707342@delong.com>
References: <1410082125488.85722@surrey.ac.uk> <540CB702.3000605@gmail.com> <20140908183339.GB98785@ricotta.doit.wisc.edu> <540E26D9.3070907@gmail.com> <1410227735.13436.YahooMailNeo@web162204.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <540ECB9E.9000102@foobar.org> <CAKD1Yr1_sCLHv=D3MeCe47Fa0dxXTXH5B+=wOKpvmEDFkJFiZw@mail.gmail.com> <75B6FA9F576969419E42BECB86CB1B89155AF364@xmb-rcd-x06.cisco.com> <20140909142226.GP15839@angus.ind.WPI.EDU> <101C89B1-019B-4E51-B869-FABC534E6D3D@delong.com> <5413A448.2030104@gont.com.ar> <0E61F8D0-22C6-4E37-93E2-9D9B13254055@delong.com> <876198F8-4283-428E-8D20-B4EC6AAE440E@steffann.nl> <CB71500C-DE25-47D3-BA43-90636BFD5522@cisco.com> <4F718CBC-F926-4A37-B9ED-13078AF4926B@steffann.nl>
To: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/hzJUXeF9bxyLxE5cW3n9MS3z838
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Interesting problems with using IPv6
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 20:05:37 -0000

It was in response to someone who felt that would defeat privacy addressing (which it likely would). However, having all hosts use the same last 24 for all privacy addresses would preserve privacy while transferring the negative impact from them onto the hosts in a much less impactful way than the current impacts in network infrastructure. 

I do like the idea of having a limited number of low-24 bit patterns that privacy addresses can rotate through. Seems like a potential best of both worlds. 

Owen


> On Sep 13, 2014, at 5:14, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
> 
> Hi Bernie,
> 
>>>> I suppose another viable solution would be to require all privacy addresses to use a common lower 24 bit string.
>>> 
>>> That would defeat the purpose of the solicited node multicast address. All of them would use the same one, so all hosts have to listen to the same one, and we're back to ARP-like efficiency again...
>> 
>> I would think he meant for a single node, not across all nodes. Thus each node only has one multicast group (for privacy addresses).
> 
> I would hope so as well but I got the impression he didn't...
> 
> Cheers :)
> Sander