From pld+bncBCC3BTNNVUNBBE45VSJQKGQEJTRBL3Q@cs.luc.edu Fri Oct 25 19:36:36 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-pd0-f199.google.com (mail-pd0-f199.google.com [209.85.192.199]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4981318F0E for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 19:36:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-pd0-f199.google.com with SMTP id y10sf7887689pdj.10 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 17:36:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=TZ872AiBnAklwzA1DH4UPpq9hU7eqlWnQLvsuWKMMt0=; b=T/fcKi4BUQ8GUz0X9wvy0w/cwujf2eV0BHEQrbDLLBdwTDknb8vNi4MVeRxclACQRZ 1a78+xuzEV8MaOgQTgDqB55DWtO0opatAY9eXncJUTliV/8ymsjbdLryYHwmZ4o6xrob gW6I1wtIKQU5+1/y7fpujzKdn8w0n6yysDggAT+6mOeJan1sq65O78g9Wf652BZEnD9x G63DRcg3fQ4F2QRikn8Y7nzowg/K4LvDMwhQeHgWFzcPiR5QNlvHjI6XYVJQuWiH7HQ1 AAVncL33hVnSBwRSuyNYa5GcXwxUzba7I1NMgon+x4EDGKSAj3rTZUH/Hl3IHzqOBt9K rMDg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkVj3ZFOfsghtVqMySI6FrH4TXMiXd9oW6yrfswzbTefU6XCH56U00ElRUfhLmxy5LxPXA9 X-Received: by 10.66.220.163 with SMTP id px3mr5039053pac.38.1382747795217; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 17:36:35 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.3.70 with SMTP id a6ls735245iga.44.canary; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 17:36:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.180.34 with SMTP id dl2mr9438573pbc.6.1382747794965; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 17:36:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pd0-f200.google.com (mail-pd0-f200.google.com [209.85.192.200]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t2si5559537pbq.68.2013.10.25.17.36.34 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 25 Oct 2013 17:36:34 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCC3BTNNVUNBBEU5VSJQKGQENMMH7MQ@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-pd0-f200.google.com with SMTP id w10sf4782086pde.3 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 17:36:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.144.133 with SMTP id sm5mr4307339pab.5.1382747794549; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 17:36:34 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.62.33 with SMTP id v1ls643797igr.4.canary; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 17:36:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.247.36 with SMTP id yb4mr4265234pbc.138.1382747794353; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 17:36:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id a10si6518168pac.47.2013.10.25.17.36.33 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 17:36:33 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01C0F11E818F; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 17:36:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0DA111E8210 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 17:36:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4kIA8x-JtB4S for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 17:36:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:d10:2000:e::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A30F511E81FD for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 17:36:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 200-081-044-004.wireless.movistar.net.ar ([200.81.44.4] helo=[192.168.43.189]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1VZrrW-0006bK-Jb; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 02:36:19 +0200 Message-ID: <526B0E15.8080602@si6networks.com> Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 21:34:29 -0300 From: Fernando Gont User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter , Tim Chown Subject: Re: Why /64 [was Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses] References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526B0A30.9060600@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <526B0A30.9060600@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Cc: Alexandru Petrescu , ipv6@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: fgont@si6networks.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCC3BTNNVUNBBEU5VSJQKGQENMMH7MQ@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBCC3BTNNVUNBBEU5VSJQKGQENMMH7MQ@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IMAPbase: 1484676511 0000000104 NonJunk $label2 $label4 $label1 X-UID: 1 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 1179 On 10/25/2013 09:17 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > 1. Why do people find it so hard to change the Subject when changing the subject? > > 2. Since we have a bunch of IID specs that all assume /64, and a large bunch of > code (and, I suspect, silicon) that assumes /64, we really need a very serious > practical analysis document before any possible decision. That's why I think that relaxing the /64 requirement is a whole different game. -- If anything, a first step would be to relax this for hosts, and *at some point in the future*, relax it for routers -- otherwise, a "legacy" host that expects a /64 might break or fail to do SLAAC if an updated router where to advertise, say, a /80. OTOH, deprecating Modified EUI-64 is a local policy which is incrementally-deployable. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCVZZPXGZMDRBEHFVWJQKGQEYW5U66I@cs.luc.edu Sat Oct 26 02:43:13 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-pb0-f72.google.com (mail-pb0-f72.google.com [209.85.160.72]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A74D31807F for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 02:43:13 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-pb0-f72.google.com with SMTP id jt11sf8079879pbb.3 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:43:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:message-id:references:to:precedence:list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe :sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=uxfCeOcxZi1iCd+uswXvfm4yoTPudeZXwEyTH6msJVI=; b=VWPcrzy89Z+/9JrzVbXYXeaaPvB0sbfEoZ9MtpSFxRdfHpeUGe9gTGq/vXgOu4SZBh 8VYFV+CvpI7e1niGVJFM8kFiaSXgv8Rb3i7i0/BTO83Z6oCfSIDswZKmlBh5z1M8VUHH Sgpfi/FrIvgZLXjSgvuTZBd6SaMQB7/U01YjDoRGBjJJJFtZzCKHRKMTJduyPlEjiP39 AkEFEwRSRKkmwnFD1eHPaB6wWHoUfyXTDmckXPcjRdE0cUGLhnd8ffODJcDckGE9sQc6 WzSdkpUVpEni5Xokdu+XFLArYZTn+OT+7snLGORIYhbQndBIyY/s4GdKYyx/4qcddxPR ZMAA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlr9bWhYw2cx3LLMCsED8GznYE8PbvZa8QxBDNwNb7SqrhHM4S4c8yfkiFgVch66JMZ0/5V X-Received: by 10.66.146.65 with SMTP id ta1mr5121972pab.19.1382773392764; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:43:12 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.49.60.68 with SMTP id f4ls1463815qer.72.gmail; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:43:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.236.194.15 with SMTP id l15mr8227595yhn.12.1382773392568; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:43:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yh0-f71.google.com (mail-yh0-f71.google.com [209.85.213.71]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z5si4503698yhk.107.2013.10.26.00.43.12 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:43:12 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCVZZPXGZMDRBEHFVWJQKGQERDZYXDY@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-yh0-f71.google.com with SMTP id f64sf12599354yha.10 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:43:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.236.94.205 with SMTP id n53mr12075039yhf.44.1382773392258; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:43:12 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.12.2 with SMTP id u2ls823744igb.11.canary; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:43:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.123.5 with SMTP id lw5mr14395646pab.83.1382773392033; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:43:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id n5si7331904pav.11.2013.10.26.00.43.11 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:43:11 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D274611E8275; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:43:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E60AF11E827B for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:43:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1NoQuGjsgNZt for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:43:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13EAB11E816F for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:43:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost.ecs.soton.ac.uk [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r9Q7h1xQ016962 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 08:43:01 +0100 X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk r9Q7h1xQ016962 Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id p9P8h10959612525Vo ret-id none; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 08:43:01 +0100 Received: from [192.168.1.108] (host213-123-213-183.in-addr.btopenworld.com [213.123.213.183]) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r9Q7fgg0023568 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 08:41:43 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\)) Subject: Re: Why /64 [was Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses] From: Tim Chown In-Reply-To: <526B0E15.8080602@si6networks.com> Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 08:41:42 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526B0A30.9060600@gmail.com> <526B0E15.8080602@si6networks.com> To: 6man List X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816) X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean X-smtpf-Report: sid=p9P8h1095961252500; tid=p9P8h10959612525Vo; client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=1:0; fails=0 X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: r9Q7h1xQ016962 X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCVZZPXGZMDRBEHFVWJQKGQERDZYXDY@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBCVZZPXGZMDRBEHFVWJQKGQERDZYXDY@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-UID: 2 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 1976 On 26 Oct 2013, at 01:34, Fernando Gont wrote: > On 10/25/2013 09:17 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> 1. Why do people find it so hard to change the Subject when changing the= subject? >> = >> 2. Since we have a bunch of IID specs that all assume /64, and a large b= unch of >> code (and, I suspect, silicon) that assumes /64, we really need a very s= erious >> practical analysis document before any possible decision. > = > That's why I think that relaxing the /64 requirement is a whole > different game. -- If anything, a first step would be to relax this for > hosts, and *at some point in the future*, relax it for routers -- > otherwise, a "legacy" host that expects a /64 might break or fail to do > SLAAC if an updated router where to advertise, say, a /80. > = > OTOH, deprecating Modified EUI-64 is a local policy which is > incrementally-deployable. Well yes, there=92s obviously a large deployed code base where /64 has been= assumed. And changing that assumption may simply not be practical. But=85 for example, some people who were concerned over the ND cache proble= m have run with /120 and DHCPv6. I=92m not advocating that. Indeed the home= net arch text specifically mentions not using such =93tricks" where the ISP= only allocates one /64 to a home which requires multiple subnets. I=92m just suggesting it would be interesting to spend a little time to fig= ure out where the /64 really is =93burnt in=94 so that, if there were a des= ire to explore proposing a /80 or /96 or whatever for a future SLAAC, we wo= uld have a clearer idea of what the implications would be, and how/if an in= cremental progression to variable length SLAAC could be facilitated. Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBDE2VF755AJBBWXLVWJQKGQEH4BPE5Y@cs.luc.edu Sat Oct 26 02:57:14 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-qc0-f199.google.com (mail-qc0-f199.google.com [209.85.216.199]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C43BC1807F for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 02:57:14 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-qc0-f199.google.com with SMTP id q4sf11167874qcx.6 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:57:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:from:to:subject:thread-topic :thread-index:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:mime-version:cc:precedence:list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe :content-type:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results; bh=mMv5/ten6p4nXihGyFLkFmD1ewwojC7BQpvgI0htQfQ=; b=VpTaPgTMd2OjAEEZbUX0Fbs/pRDjAMcdxS5pt285xxekDsKYfsnU2dCOKdpZZMzwNw iB9JtDQmaAc5s5Ro/uYuZRuB6IVKUJ0Ow8OwRKKhl6zROkbppU6GeHaAZ86I+S1RofU5 ibWjZ93yjeCICX5cQayHhP9Q5w9BO+Dkir9Mw/YAwK9asRQJhAoMYpdJ0YKFrWb0LBqZ sGiP7VFqqX5v/kHqauWRFK5wJjEQQti+xCqduygqDcBhIt2EjNCZW8h++xEknxD4CS59 CXfyPmWljexp+xAwOu59Q2A/VyeHQqUuHK8lUGdaeBAumv0rpKiTdz5p7dUSV6gnDMQj huOg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmQtIXUoTrGc0A5Ge6NFLkWz/KHY8SzVVHsu7bByn496VW70/4WjvsDOxHwKdoZWho6AyZ7 X-Received: by 10.58.23.166 with SMTP id n6mr4840520vef.13.1382774234246; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:57:14 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.49.99.67 with SMTP id eo3ls1510298qeb.41.gmail; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:57:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.221.24.70 with SMTP id rd6mr163350vcb.42.1382774234104; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:57:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ve0-f200.google.com (mail-ve0-f200.google.com [209.85.128.200]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k10si2898468vca.124.2013.10.26.00.57.14 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:57:14 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDE2VF755AJBBWPLVWJQKGQE3AZKXSI@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-ve0-f200.google.com with SMTP id cz12sf4444309veb.7 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:57:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.58.147.41 with SMTP id th9mr4526357veb.8.1382774233878; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:57:13 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.66.229 with SMTP id i5ls841583igt.10.gmail; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:57:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.218.3 with SMTP id pc3mr5714063pbc.71.1382774233683; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:57:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id gn4si6392171pbc.81.2013.10.26.00.57.13 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:57:13 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1702211E8214; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:57:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBDBB11E828D for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:57:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z-+GIDqp831X for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:56:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 153DE11E8214 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:56:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Files: signature.asc : 195 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgMFAOl0a1KtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABZgweBDL5OgR4WdIIlAQEBAwF5BQsCAQgiJCERJQIEDgUIBodnAwkGrw0NiWuMZYI/MQeDH4ENA5AtgTCEQo47hTeDJoIq X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,575,1378857600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="276957064" Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Oct 2013 07:56:50 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com [173.37.183.80]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r9Q7uo1Q026398 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sat, 26 Oct 2013 07:56:50 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.23]) by xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([173.37.183.80]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 02:56:50 -0500 From: "Fred Baker (fred)" To: Brian E Carpenter Subject: Re: Why /64 [was Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses] Thread-Topic: Why /64 [was Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses] Thread-Index: AQHO0eDV+XxNGbX310SeHcIFG0/evpoG8gYA Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 07:56:49 +0000 Message-ID: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B8B0@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526B0A30.9060600@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <526B0A30.9060600@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.61.201.55] MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Fernando Gont , Tim Chown , "" , Alexandru Petrescu X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4004161881597317460==" Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: fred@cisco.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDE2VF755AJBBWPLVWJQKGQE3AZKXSI@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBDE2VF755AJBBWPLVWJQKGQE3AZKXSI@math.luc.edu X-UID: 3 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 2322 --===============4004161881597317460== Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_823AD423-92F6-4C75-A754-AD2526B41ABA"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 --Apple-Mail=_823AD423-92F6-4C75-A754-AD2526B41ABA Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Oct 26, 2013, at 2:17 AM, Brian E Carpenter = wrote: > 2. Since we have a bunch of IID specs that all assume /64, and a large = bunch of > code (and, I suspect, silicon) that assumes /64, we really need a very = serious > practical analysis document before any possible decision. I find that less compelling than you, in that people can and do assign = addresses using DHCP/DHCPv6, and for the most part use the addresses DNS = or their communications peer tells them to use. For example, in data = centers, I have heard suggestions from a number of quarters that would = assign a /64 to a rack and /80's in tenants within it, using a /48 = assigned by tenant-aware DHCP services in SDN networks. This would allow = general data center routing to be stable (one routes to the rack) and = leaves the differentiation among subnets for tenants local to the rack. = The IPv6 prefix is a CIDR prefix, of a length selected by the operator, = in a DHCP world. --Apple-Mail=_823AD423-92F6-4C75-A754-AD2526B41ABA Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iD8DBQFSa3XabjEdbHIsm0MRAldFAKCaYL64WAdULBTe1aSa0M1u5yK3CQCgr3G3 2J4pxfMdoXX/PfXVtAGaU5I= =7uTX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_823AD423-92F6-4C75-A754-AD2526B41ABA-- --===============4004161881597317460== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- --===============4004161881597317460==-- From pld+bncBDE2VF755AJBBF4BV2JQKGQE3T3H2HA@cs.luc.edu Sat Oct 26 03:43:04 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-yh0-f69.google.com (mail-yh0-f69.google.com [209.85.213.69]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B1E518F13 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 03:43:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-yh0-f69.google.com with SMTP id v1sf12720999yhn.0 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 01:43:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:from:to:subject:thread-topic :thread-index:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:mime-version:cc:precedence:list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe :content-type:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results; bh=Xbrw6g/9zp2PvnpML2RedJMfSi7lpT7LE/0szWrRi0c=; b=EpKDDnu6hMCLKX3zqWR1fDuc8vm97oONHNVYKNfQylZ4zJEcA3ig/KANNNJizFDANa /AZR11RKs9443XkMkRDK/tKgBZPXLXIRtHtawbOHdd+bmOqrHSgiTccoJwpd4+2twBbf aJ1QN49kUceXEt3M1Saog316KoD+N7wf7ZM2nPNPEpkeZPa8AdMPckG3iZxWvc+/sVew AiHiAAZy3uObHdmnSM97CG21eRuhlZUdTNfF4B116m/hiCHFIwqcKG7GppHFaxEkbTm9 XMpOVi50PhDF0Xf2ARywVaIWSWmPyvk/il2JRgTDFWJI+CI0oPueOn69kmGeemZ47o4Z 4adA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnAlArbwQBE3L5v+//LcDlWwgal6zYWPKzw1UJ1CqKCNhumVv0fIkZxthRZCr8xkZSxCoi6 X-Received: by 10.236.20.114 with SMTP id o78mr10963507yho.8.1382776983767; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 01:43:03 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.49.39.193 with SMTP id r1ls1484031qek.30.gmail; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 01:43:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.25.170 with SMTP id d10mr150761qeg.96.1382776983642; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 01:43:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-f69.google.com (mail-qa0-f69.google.com [209.85.216.69]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o9si5095314qez.6.2013.10.26.01.43.03 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 26 Oct 2013 01:43:03 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDE2VF755AJBBF4BV2JQKGQE5UEKKVY@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-qa0-f69.google.com with SMTP id cm18sf5109068qab.0 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 01:43:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.58.137.135 with SMTP id qi7mr4916971veb.25.1382776983178; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 01:43:03 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.16.97 with SMTP id f1ls824581igd.14.canary; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 01:43:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.136.227 with SMTP id qd3mr14571712pab.113.1382776982936; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 01:43:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id gn4si6468125pbc.201.2013.10.26.01.43.02 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 01:43:02 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28F4811E80F9; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 01:43:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28BFD11E8147 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 01:43:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nAo1FgArbIOB for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 01:42:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F97711E80F9 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 01:42:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Files: signature.asc : 195 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgMFALR/a1KtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABZgweBDL5OgR4WdIIlAQEBAwF5EAIBFhQkMiUCBA4FCAaHcwa4Zo8kMQeDH4ENA5AtgTCYNIMmgio X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,575,1378857600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="276949067" Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Oct 2013 08:42:52 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com [173.37.183.80]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r9Q8gprf025759 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sat, 26 Oct 2013 08:42:51 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.23]) by xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([173.37.183.80]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 03:42:51 -0500 From: "Fred Baker (fred)" To: Fernando Gont Subject: Why /64 Thread-Topic: Why /64 Thread-Index: AQHO0ida5dK4DGXhYECHnD78yEvvsQ== Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 08:42:50 +0000 Message-ID: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> In-Reply-To: <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.61.201.55] MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Tim Chown , "" , Alexandru Petrescu X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2538445525879928008==" Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: fred@cisco.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDE2VF755AJBBF4BV2JQKGQE5UEKKVY@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBDE2VF755AJBBF4BV2JQKGQE5UEKKVY@math.luc.edu X-UID: 4 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 1810 --===============2538445525879928008== Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E43CB496-E593-4CF2-8B41-7A82E9BFC680"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 --Apple-Mail=_E43CB496-E593-4CF2-8B41-7A82E9BFC680 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Oct 25, 2013, at 9:38 PM, Fernando Gont = wrote: >> Well, you're proposing deprecating EUI-64, so there is no longer any >> reason to be constrained to /64....=20 >=20 > Is this the sole reason for requiring subnets to be a /64? It was the driver for the change from RFC 1884's /80 (with a 48 bit MAC = in the IID) to RFC 2373's /64 (with an EUI-64). I would think that any = argument today about the /64 would be about inertia if not the EUI-64. --Apple-Mail=_E43CB496-E593-4CF2-8B41-7A82E9BFC680 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iD8DBQFSa4CrbjEdbHIsm0MRAlXkAKD6petiV3Q3yUvPEJLZMhkSVOlXOQCg73aU DSZLabY/Hs4McBLrOObo87M= =Jke0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_E43CB496-E593-4CF2-8B41-7A82E9BFC680-- --===============2538445525879928008== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- --===============2538445525879928008==-- From pld+bncBCC77QGWVMIRB4FYWOJQKGQEEW7KGUI@cs.luc.edu Sun Oct 27 04:27:13 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-ob0-f199.google.com (mail-ob0-f199.google.com [209.85.214.199]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 092971849A for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 04:27:12 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-ob0-f199.google.com with SMTP id gq1sf9484987obb.6 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 02:27:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:organization :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=KOUoZSxcUhZs5VX6LanHHH+hyafGBRdfk1Lj7UUhdnk=; b=FAUtkqrN0OECF9YC1m0MNTsfjJ7lBsNO6R+FZ1WZhfGt4wmAI+gxC/FMdvEYrXSxpD FLc1qVV0tAtyenfFsB/EKVKT7i1miqutr5TgXSYdeEgvonXrxsnBxOTAbjkJs8y0AuO4 K3O4VIHbpkA7NZgnqGMhONrIQVVXfs+iGOmcX0plG+Dj1d5weXf7FR/zTYU4Q4Ob2eN4 OlNlainp2NakdWrm5+iZ/YmUr4lBWzJ02cRWJJZeYOlEGIeBHJ2X2X6NPBTRXeT8KzN4 tACOAVodCzjUOVN88uDUkjDsSnlDlgcDEVfglBmcy0oZvkjTAaGDn7I1o0CX/iXDnosu ArKQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlQPCTxAcj/M8joZogK/m0FbFV8f3sqC8WS4m4oYxewWMGQp3BeqMx76SdqG4ryXKcS01Lf X-Received: by 10.43.14.4 with SMTP id po4mr6079849icb.18.1382866032552; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 02:27:12 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.7.37 with SMTP id g5ls1199577iga.29.canary; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 02:27:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.121.68 with SMTP id li4mr19364048pab.33.1382866032324; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 02:27:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f71.google.com (mail-pb0-f71.google.com [209.85.160.71]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a10si10013382pac.105.2013.10.27.02.27.12 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 27 Oct 2013 02:27:12 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABB35YWOJQKGQE7AGZG7I@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-pb0-f71.google.com with SMTP id uo5sf5898353pbc.6 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 02:27:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.236.137 with SMTP id uu9mr2010820pbc.8.1382866031986; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 02:27:11 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.65.1 with SMTP id t1ls1159592igs.18.canary; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 02:27:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.135.132 with SMTP id ps4mr61312pbb.171.1382866031770; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 02:27:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id jp3si9037925pbc.246.2013.10.27.02.27.11 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 02:27:11 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DEE711E8125; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 02:27:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B81F921E8094 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 02:26:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ifWS4MkQ4BB1 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 02:26:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from icaras.de.unfix.org (icaras.de.unfix.org [IPv6:2a01:4f8:130:74c1:5054:ff:fec4:f7d4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5623221E8089 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 02:26:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kami.ch.unfix.org (kami.ch.unfix.org [IPv6:2001:1620:f42:99:7256:81ff:fea5:2925]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by icaras.de.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 61E64801C2A2; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 10:26:43 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 10:26:49 +0100 From: Jeroen Massar Organization: Massar MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lorenzo Colitti , "Fred Baker (fred)" Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Cc: Fernando Gont , Tim Chown , "" , Alexandru Petrescu X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pld@math.luc.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABB35YWOJQKGQE7AGZG7I@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBAABB35YWOJQKGQE7AGZG7I@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 5 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 2721 On 2013-10-27 09:55, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Fred Baker (fred) > wrote: > > > Is this the sole reason for requiring subnets to be a /64? > > It was the driver for the change from RFC 1884's /80 (with a 48 bit > MAC in the IID) to RFC 2373's /64 (with an EUI-64). I would think > that any argument today about the /64 would be about inertia if not > the EUI-64. > > > I think the split /64 extremely useful because it provides a minimum > size assignment that makes autoconfiguration easy, Absolutely true; but with DHCP any length would work which though is stateful. Note that IPv4 has a autoconfig scheme too and that works fine with a /16, thus only 16bits "lost" (as some people would say). I am happy with the /64 though, it is nice and clean and you never have to figure out the netmask anymore. > allows privacy, IMHO big nonsense. The company (amongst many others!) you work for uses amongst others cookies to track their people, and if they really bother could even use natural language structure, search query types, and other behavior for breaking this 'privacy'. Also note that even if the last 64bits are random, your company should be more than able to say "oh, there are typically X users in there, it likely is Y"... Thus privacy, far from. The only 'privacy' you get on the IP level is when you use the useless-for-ACL/logging is when you move to a different network (different /48 at that, not even the /64) as then they can't directly associate you as the previous person. But then again, those cookies you are setting are pretty static and will nicely link them up again. IP-level privacy does not exist as long as upper layers have different ways of defeating them and/or when there are statistically too few users in even a /48. > and gives users the capability to number multiple applications or multiple > devices without having to use NAT. There are a bunch of ISPs who give out "native IPv6", quite a few of these give exactly 1 IPv6 address to their users.. As long as they do not get a routed prefix and cannot get it through DHCPv6-PD or some other method, the user will have to NAT or do other tricks. For ISPs it is a business case: you want more IPs (IPv4 or IPv6), then pay for them. And that premise will never go away unfortunately. As such, the rest of your mail is already happening unfortunately. Greets, Jeroen -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCC77QGWVMIRBKOQWOJQKGQEEIGSCDQ@cs.luc.edu Sun Oct 27 05:17:14 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-pd0-f197.google.com (mail-pd0-f197.google.com [209.85.192.197]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 237C818F0B for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 05:17:14 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-pd0-f197.google.com with SMTP id q10sf9815864pdj.4 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 03:17:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:organization :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=4whi+ifyKqM1rdCjjW3wO8DXqLkU2pFUkkqXEUvDLUs=; b=O33HJzVRRJZbFfzmVjVLt3eVDFq1oEF9s/ZHS8zj2Cid7/uSUSyVFpcxfBddkONEfv KNsow0A6JTFkGgeR15gcjilrQ9dK79EILibJZPiJpmqwuuDwZ1+3T1L1Xt/XsMKvN4Yh mEYI05z5vQmTvEQ3nscWEMweMsqJOAhvt/+XQ5fqGZ5NzuMfV3WRCxtb0kMJbQcMFZW2 T2bxBiY/4/hh38mLeeVWFSij9ayN6M9oIDl36ihiwxmWly1jXPea2J5p/RvjOc7s00qU iHYH/TmokGQEj/nmk3kdZ64Fd088aj5XUK6wcWjd6QSuGxvuObXCeO7qX0xmskAEUrKx u38A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlWWOXGHIipSaswBd6kIx7CZ4c+WxelqQNRtYfXCDBir4NJKjnx7PO9f7ty33LSrjk9ghn5 X-Received: by 10.66.136.47 with SMTP id px15mr6632772pab.28.1382869033254; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 03:17:13 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.73.106 with SMTP id k10ls1099525igv.3.gmail; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 03:17:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.16.65 with SMTP id e1mr4688901igd.19.1382869033050; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 03:17:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-f200.google.com (mail-ie0-f200.google.com [209.85.223.200]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id xr8si1927798icb.29.2013.10.27.03.17.12 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 27 Oct 2013 03:17:12 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBKGQWOJQKGQEBXPLX2Q@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-ie0-f200.google.com with SMTP id aq17sf16966214iec.3 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 03:17:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.43.149.144 with SMTP id kk16mr23599icc.32.1382869032464; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 03:17:12 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.21.101 with SMTP id u5ls1209886ige.14.gmail; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 03:17:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.252.106 with SMTP id zr10mr10805119pbc.63.1382869032083; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 03:17:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id dj3si9149375pbc.100.2013.10.27.03.17.11 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 03:17:11 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8656411E818F; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 03:17:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18DE511E818F for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 03:17:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1rl7o1nTxTxO for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 03:17:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from icaras.de.unfix.org (icaras.de.unfix.org [IPv6:2a01:4f8:130:74c1:5054:ff:fec4:f7d4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56A1A11E8271 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 03:17:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kami.ch.unfix.org (kami.ch.unfix.org [IPv6:2001:1620:f42:99:7256:81ff:fea5:2925]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by icaras.de.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1AC20801C2A2; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 11:16:59 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <526CE821.1000900@massar.ch> Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 11:17:05 +0100 From: Jeroen Massar Organization: Massar MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lorenzo Colitti Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> In-Reply-To: Cc: Fernando Gont , Tim Chown , "" , "Fred Baker \(fred\)" , Alexandru Petrescu X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pld@math.luc.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBKGQWOJQKGQEBXPLX2Q@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBAABBKGQWOJQKGQEBXPLX2Q@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 6 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 3930 On 2013-10-27 10:41, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Jeroen Massar > wrote: > > IMHO big nonsense. The company (amongst many others!) you work for > uses amongst others cookies to track their people, > > > Not sure we want to get into that argument here, but there's a > difference because as a user you have the capability to control what > cookies you accept and when you clear them (even via a browser extension > that periodically nukes them, if you wish), but you can't really control > what address your ISP gives you. Cookies is just one of the many ways as per: http://panopticlick.eff.org/ And note my comment about statistics. There is no such thing as 'privacy' on the HTTP level. Thus stating that it is there for IPv6 in general because there are 64bits that one can randomize is nonsense too. > There are a bunch of ISPs who give out "native IPv6", quite a few of > these give exactly 1 IPv6 address to their users.. > > As long as they do not get a routed prefix and cannot get it through > DHCPv6-PD or some other method, the user will have to NAT or do other > tricks. > > > That's interesting. I was not aware of any, at least in the residential > space. All the large deployments I know of (which presumably constitute > the vast majority of residential IPv6 access, since they're so large) > hand out at least a /64 and in most cases at least a /60. Do you have > pointers to ISPs that do this? Note that I state 'routed'. You probably mean the ISPs who require ND-proxy to get that /64 on your side of the link? :) Amongst others: http://www.ipsidixit.net/2010/03/24/239/ one of many articles on this for free.fr (the "largest IPv6 native deployment"). Liberty Global (Unity Media in Germany) is playing with DS-Lite, hence you get 1 IPv6 address and a CGN IPv4 address (which is useless in prime-time as those boxes cannot handle all the BitTorrent and other heavy traffic flows). Also for the US centric: http://www.comcast6.net/index.php/ipv6-deployment-faq 8<---------------- With IPv6 for standalone computers, what size IPv6 prefix will I receive? We will allocate a single IPv6 address (/128), since we know that only a single device is connecting, with no additional need to sub-net. We plan to continue to assess address allocation policies as we deploy, particularly given how very new IPv6 is from an operational standpoint globally. When will Comcast support IPv6 for home networking? Comcast is planning to begin pilot market deployment of IPv6 home networking support in the near future. ------------------>8 Though that might not match reality (as I recall having heard other stories, no facts on that at hand though) and I know at least business folks getting a /48, that is, if they have enough leverage to get it enabled on their link. Oh and we are then not even talking about even the possibility of a static prefix, typically one will rotate every 24 hours because of 'privacy' reasons and other nice annoyances to make sure people will cough up for the business prefix... > For ISPs it is a business case: you want more IPs (IPv4 or IPv6), then > pay for them. > > > They tried that in IPv4 and it didn't work, and we ended up paying the > price in increased application complexity. Here's to pigheadedly hoping > we can do better this time. :-) Hey, I hope so too ;) > Though to be fair, in IPv4 (but not in IPv6) there is real scarcity, so > it's a bit more justifiable to say that addresses need to be paid for. Partially true yes, lets not go down the spammer-rabbit-hole ;) Greets, Jeroen -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCC77QGWVMIRBAHBWOJQKGQESH275GQ@cs.luc.edu Sun Oct 27 05:52:49 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-qa0-f72.google.com (mail-qa0-f72.google.com [209.85.216.72]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF31018F0B for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 05:52:48 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-qa0-f72.google.com with SMTP id j15sf7919324qaq.3 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 03:52:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=SwzOgHFE43FklNdkc2iHf/JWBfNQ9tTi/ZJc2hpusXw=; b=PQ13tdsBi+OrdG15ZGqULRiZ5fJ7JyJGA2d6eVjXIUnhuBIwTo9y6zxV7MmHm/HVMy nlxqf6x7/DrrYPTdICRTD0xTY23hk83uu0K4uUZjH7KMSPv6M2z4LWyKPX5iSY2xRWTP F3jRbYVmR74riq7hRjFSg0bF4pvm3A6LQ32d9oK8a8kTMJq/ssugpZUHzSEhIykUYsqR m8nvq9or1dsd5fsy56OwSmAlZYG9tE8Ih0BTcOY02Pt3C0Jzj/tEwKshW5tb62Lf3Ep9 V48XBbKHouaRXHWXQ9q1Io+NcFHu1OtdGyBjBT0nEayrYBlmvxje4jYT+jVvtP6stKwS 5TJg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkzv5z6bA7mK5LTbOxWLKviUGkNWzeD+ouUxM6yeV0WMfvWDyJaiGkx3kWr86b6hdIelD1O X-Received: by 10.236.56.70 with SMTP id l46mr17557325yhc.2.1382871168308; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 03:52:48 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.16.17 with SMTP id b17ls1144543igd.11.gmail; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 03:52:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.117.3 with SMTP id ka3mr4762373igb.15.1382871168122; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 03:52:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-f199.google.com (mail-ie0-f199.google.com [209.85.223.199]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id id2si2795758icc.39.2013.10.27.03.52.47 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 27 Oct 2013 03:52:47 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABB77AWOJQKGQEOPGRQIY@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-ie0-f199.google.com with SMTP id qd12sf17022259ieb.2 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 03:52:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.42.136.136 with SMTP id u8mr5477809ict.16.1382871167554; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 03:52:47 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.222.69 with SMTP id qk5ls1205486igc.22.canary; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 03:52:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.255.229 with SMTP id at5mr10702626pbd.130.1382871167287; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 03:52:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id gn4si9170473pbc.291.2013.10.27.03.52.47 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 03:52:47 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE4CE21F9FB3; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 03:52:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9E1A21F9EFE for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 03:52:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jdtTVAqR2JVa for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 03:52:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from globis01.globis.net (RayH-1-pt.tunnel.tserv11.ams1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f14:62e::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C05E321F9D7A for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 03:52:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEFC887006F; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 11:52:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from globis01.globis.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.globis.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6pwATFDQrWsL; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 11:52:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from Rays-iMac-2.local (unknown [192.168.0.3]) (Authenticated sender: Ray.Hunter@globis.net) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A0EA587006D; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 11:52:42 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <526CF079.7030804@globis.net> Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 11:52:41 +0100 From: Ray Hunter User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.8 (Macintosh/20130427) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lorenzo Colitti Subject: Re: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Cc: Fernando Gont , Tim Chown , "" , "Fred Baker \(fred\)" , Alexandru Petrescu X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pld@math.luc.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABB77AWOJQKGQEOPGRQIY@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBAABB77AWOJQKGQEOPGRQIY@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 7 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 3569 Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > >>> Is this the sole reason for requiring subnets to be a /64? >> It was the driver for the change from RFC 1884's /80 (with a 48 bit MAC in >> the IID) to RFC 2373's /64 (with an EUI-64). I would think that any >> argument today about the /64 would be about inertia if not the EUI-64. >> > > I think the split /64 extremely useful because it provides a minimum size > assignment that makes autoconfiguration easy, allows privacy, and gives > users the capability to number multiple applications or multiple devices > without having to use NAT. > > I have personally had more than one conversation with operators who cannot > see why they would ever want to give a user more than one IPv6 address, > because a) that's what they do in IPv4, and b) a /64 is a waste of space. > Mobile operators seem particularly prone to this line of reasoning. Telling > them that there's plenty of space to give every device a /64, or that their > service is better if users are allowed more than a /64 for privacy reasons, > or that it allows users to connect multiple devices, etc. has no effect. > Saying "it's specified in the standards and some implementations might not > work if you don't do it" has proven to be a much better argument so far. > Often those same operators then come to appreciate the flexibility once > they have deployed using /64 or larger and see how it makes things better > and easier. > > It's true that some operators can decide to use only DHCPv6 and hand out > /128s today, but since some platforms don't support DHCPv6, that decision > has compatibility consequences. > > If we ditch the one-size-fits all subnet size and leave the subnet size up > to the operator, it's virtually certain that we will end up with some > deployments that hand out /128s. That makes IPv4-style NAT virtually > inevitable, because users will want to connect more than one device > regardless of what the operator wants them to do. Since apps have to adapt > to the lowest-common denominator connection, there's a good chance that > apps will have to keep IPv4-style NAT traversal mechanisms around forever. > I think that's a fundamentally bad deal, because there's no real reason to > employ address sharing if you have enough addresses; the side-effects of > NAT that people seem to like (e.g., security) come from stateful inpection, > not from the translation itself. > > On the other hand, if we do keep a one-size-fits-all subnet size, then I > think /64 is the best choice, not just for backwards compatibility reasons, > but for lots of other reasons such as because it splits the address in two > halves that are natural machine integer sizes, provides enough space to > protect against the birthday paradox, and so on. > > Cheers, > Lorenzo > If I read the above, you seem to be arguing that dropping fixed /64 would be a bad thing because operators will use this as an opportunity to limit their customers to a single IPv6 address, and yet simultaneously you seem to be arguing that maintaing a fixed /64 is a good thing even though it limits customers to a single subnet. Do I understand you correctly? The logic doesn't seem very self-consistent to me. Me? I believe in CIDR. -- Regards, RayH -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBDG3J6XA3QJRBUUJWSJQKGQEM7NLECI@cs.luc.edu Sun Oct 27 07:19:31 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-pa0-f71.google.com (mail-pa0-f71.google.com [209.85.220.71]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59CAF1832F for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:19:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-pa0-f71.google.com with SMTP id fa1sf7222843pad.2 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 05:19:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:subject:from:to:date :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:precedence:list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe :sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=GNl/fDa8Lu1ojI+CGDCn1PDgJRMYZ+a8R88L+cVxn5M=; b=L33E6UUwZvnliHiGVwfTh18MJfEwm14myFRuaPqWKPsenYz8A1gFbfb0GwCX8qShs4 ZN7EcjFAr68Me9Z5dpqpF8RrjKgVqPqM7wbXWepAvCGYNGKfrCHSmtO2HFmIZGri7MZ3 ES3CP1mfJOl3szLz2uc7NzHRJHq+a6w5xq+GvOxKAs1XE9/2xHuU7wA/zK+y1T8bHiKv 9QJzK1Slm+ZsvX+aLunOxBJP46qFirry4wrlxBostNFa0o2u9VlTlI9g7q07c356Eryf /sa/fbOzv8+N0i8zqDlNJNfx/d0dItpBc0TN+I11nbcVudVw5IfWXB1JQxp4Kp2TBnjE ed1g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmVYkbs6EX7djl9zif3aZ6kTUeU1RpFpVqZHXN1itBXbdFEA3Q3R9DhhDSBCZUkkvPxk2jI X-Received: by 10.66.160.168 with SMTP id xl8mr7035355pab.14.1382876370430; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 05:19:30 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.49.85.198 with SMTP id j6ls1739463qez.6.gmail; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 05:19:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.52.118.73 with SMTP id kk9mr8277747vdb.13.1382876370267; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 05:19:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ve0-f200.google.com (mail-ve0-f200.google.com [209.85.128.200]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id um1si4610877vcb.8.2013.10.27.05.19.29 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 27 Oct 2013 05:19:29 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDG3J6XA3QJRBUMJWSJQKGQET2F6WYI@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-ve0-f200.google.com with SMTP id cz12sf8061110veb.11 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 05:19:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.58.94.162 with SMTP id dd2mr7194552veb.21.1382876369551; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 05:19:29 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.78.65 with SMTP id z1ls1198718igw.21.gmail; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 05:19:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.218.3 with SMTP id pc3mr11121257pbc.71.1382876368944; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 05:19:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id y7si7210628pbi.203.2013.10.27.05.19.28 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 05:19:28 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5A4521F9F19; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 05:19:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5491D21F9F34 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 05:19:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e42ATB7Y7Zsy for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 05:19:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net [IPv6:2001:44b8:8060:ff02:300:1:2:6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3563F21F9F19 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 05:19:22 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqQBANMDbVKWZX+7/2dsb2JhbAANTIM/TqpDlCKBMoMZAQEBBIEJCxguVxmID6RSkwiPXBaEFgOJB5AyiySIbg Received: from eth4284.nsw.adsl.internode.on.net (HELO [192.168.1.196]) ([150.101.127.187]) by ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 27 Oct 2013 22:49:10 +1030 Message-ID: <1382876347.3151.85.camel@karl> Subject: Re: Why /64 From: Karl Auer To: ipv6@ietf.org Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 23:19:07 +1100 In-Reply-To: References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3-0ubuntu6 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: kauer@biplane.com.au X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDG3J6XA3QJRBUMJWSJQKGQET2F6WYI@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBDG3J6XA3QJRBUMJWSJQKGQET2F6WYI@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 8 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 1145 On Sun, 2013-10-27 at 07:57 -0400, Scott Brim wrote: > I _don't_ want to get into it here but I want to briefly support Lorenzo on > privacy. Privacy through controlling tracking of an IP address is very > different in mechanism and result from higher layer end-to-end privacy. Me too. It's easy to forget that the Internet does not consist solely of the web. There are plenty of other things that people may not want to have tracked via the IP address, and who knows what other protocols may yet be developed that could benefit from the privacy extensions of IPv6? Regards, K. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer http://twitter.com/kauer389 GPG fingerprint: B862 FB15 FE96 4961 BC62 1A40 6239 1208 9865 5F9A Old fingerprint: AE1D 4868 6420 AD9A A698 5251 1699 7B78 4EEE 6017 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCC77QGWVMIRBVU6WSJQKGQE4TINTRY@cs.luc.edu Sun Oct 27 08:04:22 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-ie0-f199.google.com (mail-ie0-f199.google.com [209.85.223.199]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A10019446 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:04:22 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f199.google.com with SMTP id qd12sf17289553ieb.2 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 06:04:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:organization :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=RFNQcwEQMACZ5bTUFX6lE4zgsCdbNt5wcOuTbvWnOkU=; b=fMSeYuhpD/CjAesW3kPr8yK+XH0tI3Vh/Apu9h8QB+OIlDGeEn+H9/McNxxFa5a45f za2SqQ5ybgFJGl4fodnbUBJ7K1981bt+VJTZ6N+dMq+fCRckWRUgnT5leRbK2d+vKll0 ij3Z6mLvd0OROL585Dyh+UU1bNIW0xOELcq047b7BvI6tTy9Xn9oxWXAR8TncfTJ50b4 gX5+zSJ+lMV3EZceQWDSHoIDNz7zn5Rw6uWEXeWVighhNpjCuOpEk1N/eZlzhUJIOhaG 66p/bgBxn+XII8MonXlCNGiEhTKwLktnG67Okcx6bAlmDh6Ey3SPyLHfr9DVDHZZGsnX wGqA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlnq7QDlaHJVEZ/LOM12baVK68Jo98wXmckDBz+QbiBq8c8o0tukU0GRKm0Zo2zd1PwercA X-Received: by 10.50.130.44 with SMTP id ob12mr3047359igb.0.1382879062193; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 06:04:22 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.154.74 with SMTP id vm10ls1194739igb.4.gmail; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 06:04:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.118.41 with SMTP id kj9mr5130002igb.9.1382879061992; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 06:04:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-f198.google.com (mail-ie0-f198.google.com [209.85.223.198]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ns10si9893954icc.127.2013.10.27.06.04.21 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 27 Oct 2013 06:04:21 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBVM6WSJQKGQEEUIHOUY@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-ie0-f198.google.com with SMTP id tp5sf17268979ieb.5 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 06:04:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.158.4 with SMTP id wq4mr5373685obb.18.1382879061186; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 06:04:21 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.12.2 with SMTP id u2ls1187663igb.11.canary; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 06:04:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.13.104 with SMTP id g8mr16653258pbc.33.1382879061001; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 06:04:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id sj5si10369356pab.168.2013.10.27.06.04.20 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 06:04:20 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60D7211E826D; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 06:04:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E08EE11E827D for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 06:04:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oAdzc3oUIk1r for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 06:04:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from icaras.de.unfix.org (icaras.de.unfix.org [IPv6:2a01:4f8:130:74c1:5054:ff:fec4:f7d4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4C2411E827C for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 06:04:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kami.ch.unfix.org (kami.ch.unfix.org [IPv6:2001:1620:f42:99:7256:81ff:fea5:2925]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by icaras.de.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A8412801C2A2; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:04:09 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <526D0F47.5040803@massar.ch> Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:04:07 +0100 From: Jeroen Massar Organization: Massar MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Brim , Lorenzo Colitti Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> In-Reply-To: Cc: Fernando Gont , Tim Chown , "" , Alexandru Petrescu , "Fred Baker \(fred\)" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pld@math.luc.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBVM6WSJQKGQEEUIHOUY@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBAABBVM6WSJQKGQEEUIHOUY@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 9 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 1560 On 2013-10-27 12:57, Scott Brim wrote: > > On Oct 27, 2013 5:42 AM, "Lorenzo Colitti" > wrote: >> >> On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Jeroen Massar > wrote: >>> >>> IMHO big nonsense. The company (amongst many others!) you work for > uses amongst others cookies to track their people, >> >> Not sure we want to get into that argument here, but > > I _don't_ want to get into it here but I want to briefly support Lorenzo > on privacy. Privacy through controlling tracking of an IP address is > very different in mechanism and result from higher layer end-to-end > privacy. It does not matter if you have 1 IPv4 address with 2000 people behind it, or 1 /48 with 2000 people behind it. The algorithms to de-anonimize and differentiate between the real hosts behind them exist. Cookies are one way to do that, complete browser profiles or other differences in the client, be that the tcp stack level another. For other protocols it is all much easier as they are typically already authenticated anyway or have other bits. As such any of these 'privacy extensions' are futile and just a lie to the user of them that they are more "private" as for most home networks they simply are not. Greets, Jeroen -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBDW4XN6F3MIRBWOMWSJQKGQEH2CAPAI@cs.luc.edu Sun Oct 27 09:42:34 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-pb0-f69.google.com (mail-pb0-f69.google.com [209.85.160.69]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 145B817C71 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:42:34 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-pb0-f69.google.com with SMTP id md4sf1046254pbc.4 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:42:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:precedence:list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe :sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=AkBX/Fg6eGyGOuOI2vt7RaRVdno80vWwfGxV6WoY8b0=; b=EL0ui5LGPdI0unjq5O1VGsQ4KYLYXkSSVpp4mqsASjfbFSzajGi1djQlMh+sL6wRWl bezrasu274CwyF7H56t5+O11RNEQ9VhcA42WZfk/fnF2eieTdBEz9plGqi+/9VQtbjA6 kGt3p4j2txWjufYuB0Vht5vsvowPpl91MSxFHpkcaUFUXT3t97O6Zp1FsPB2S8JpUtZc ZXgq52f3NYZ5d1HtAWneNr3DvXPLv0LZcQ0dgMWX0eXhA6K1DLZu5Ij+E76k+coGXR7B b3yl7oeyC4rF0FPobTBxBPNML7rVnFgc2W3og+Rp0Kr0ipR5TDdeiD4pWMbrlELI6nKj 465g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn2JbZv/vluFV7PTNH3W0zUQaZuIBQJJE3m4acUaAv0R3tSjh+LcD7k62sZyKtLzgIThOC8 X-Received: by 10.66.149.67 with SMTP id ty3mr6905788pab.27.1382884953453; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:42:33 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.101.51 with SMTP id fd19ls1283670igb.10.canary; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:42:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.40.6 with SMTP id t6mr5406000igk.32.1382884953259; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:42:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-f199.google.com (mail-ie0-f199.google.com [209.85.223.199]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m19si7128514igb.24.2013.10.27.07.42.32 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:42:32 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDW4XN6F3MIRBWGMWSJQKGQEB4LPFGI@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-ie0-f199.google.com with SMTP id qd12sf17481224ieb.10 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:42:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.186.105 with SMTP id fj9mr5242273obc.5.1382884952765; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:42:32 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.111.167 with SMTP id ij7ls1257942igb.39.gmail; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:42:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.125.198 with SMTP id ms6mr11411862pbb.98.1382884952579; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:42:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id a10si10528220pac.134.2013.10.27.07.42.32 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:42:32 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E227E21E80CC; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:41:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCAE621E80CC for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:41:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PhSyYYrC4cys for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:41:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:d10:2000:e::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39F5D11E8192 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:41:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [70.151.3.10] (helo=[192.168.118.120]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1VaRXN-00047L-Lb; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 15:41:53 +0100 Message-ID: <526D24F2.7030701@gont.com.ar> Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 10:36:34 -0400 From: Fernando Gont User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Chown , 6man List Subject: Re: Why /64 [was Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses] References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526B0A30.9060600@gmail.com> <526B0E15.8080602@si6networks.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: fernando@gont.com.ar X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDW4XN6F3MIRBWGMWSJQKGQEB4LPFGI@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBDW4XN6F3MIRBWGMWSJQKGQEB4LPFGI@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-UID: 10 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 2019 On 10/26/2013 03:41 AM, Tim Chown wrote: >> = >> That's why I think that relaxing the /64 requirement is a whole = >> different game. -- If anything, a first step would be to relax this >> for hosts, and *at some point in the future*, relax it for routers >> -- otherwise, a "legacy" host that expects a /64 might break or >> fail to do SLAAC if an updated router where to advertise, say, a >> /80. >> = >> OTOH, deprecating Modified EUI-64 is a local policy which is = >> incrementally-deployable. > = > Well yes, there=92s obviously a large deployed code base where /64 has > been assumed. And changing that assumption may simply not be > practical. I'm not sure about whether that's practical or not.. but just wanted to note that it's a different game. > But=85 for example, some people who were concerned over the ND cache > problem have run with /120 and DHCPv6. = Those should call a lemon a lemon, and ask their vendors to fix their ND implementations ;-). > I=92m not advocating that. > Indeed the homenet arch text specifically mentions not using such > =93tricks" where the ISP only allocates one /64 to a home which > requires multiple subnets. So.. what do ou do in that case... IPv6 NAT? > I=92m just suggesting it would be interesting to spend a little time to > figure out where the /64 really is =93burnt in=94 so that, if there were > a desire to explore proposing a /80 or /96 or whatever for a future > SLAAC, we would have a clearer idea of what the implications would > be, and how/if an incremental progression to variable length SLAAC > could be facilitated. Agreed. Thanks, -- = Fernando Gont e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBA7OWSJQKGQEDCUCYNI@cs.luc.edu Sun Oct 27 10:53:40 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-pd0-f197.google.com (mail-pd0-f197.google.com [209.85.192.197]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 146F518EBC for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 10:53:39 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-pd0-f197.google.com with SMTP id q10sf10204876pdj.0 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:53:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=GGxzZ1/AkufG9g1kXjABroA1wgIED/+3nQUFZgbf8Pg=; b=PcF1yEGmhzyRRxeFGc8JL0ooLL77SpIGSqQksIYc+ZNKmL6tXGqYscr8YDBwTTh5mP EXLikYGhvtOp6AV4ZJidUs2vuNUgSEZ/FfD7Yt9GxQAZIjuLUqkyF/nynsnER/fDG3a1 vHCuSMiC98Aenz/XdNW+xB/9QdIs/jtzZHQB64X2CYBhDay6pEB0NKn8CIIxSNC+JsoT hH7mtcBsY38HYFt7b0My9LLXOJI0+3KADCkfuS9VxKLCmYNQ21iNVbeciF0VlA62VflT lvjjN1dKqzTymyBNe7XAZlG2Bf16xFfmZOz2oruh6KHoJ6N2e/fkkv3v+ohCRBnVYX2n PVZA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlXpfeWC/StoEdlbDuPwYiHDiMEsj3rLLKioCDHow4V3avyx3NnsZQJNI/J2TbPPwcxR5dD X-Received: by 10.66.221.137 with SMTP id qe9mr7581344pac.4.1382889219205; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:53:39 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.182.148.106 with SMTP id tr10ls1058612obb.77.gmail; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:53:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.230.135 with SMTP id sy7mr11056976obc.24.1382889219056; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:53:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-f69.google.com (mail-oa0-f69.google.com [209.85.219.69]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ck3si6979957oeb.112.2013.10.27.08.53.38 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:53:38 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBAXOWSJQKGQEL4XGEUY@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-oa0-f69.google.com with SMTP id n12sf10270880oag.8 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:53:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.43.152.202 with SMTP id kx10mr6524356icc.3.1382889218318; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:53:38 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.128.169 with SMTP id np9ls1342064igb.27.gmail; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:53:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.158.196 with SMTP id ww4mr21231049pab.57.1382889218137; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:53:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id hj4si10651156pac.126.2013.10.27.08.53.38 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:53:38 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69A3911E8170; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:53:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0C1811E8170 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:53:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z4vtwyi20o6b for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:53:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sobre.alvarezp.com (sobre.alvarezp.com [173.230.155.94]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3287C11E828D for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:53:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.208] (189.220.45.207.cable.dyn.cableonline.com.mx [189.220.45.207]) by sobre.alvarezp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A3655613D; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 11:53:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <526D3706.5070409@alvarezp.ods.org> Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:53:42 -0700 From: Octavio Alvarez User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130821 Icedove/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeroen Massar Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> In-Reply-To: <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> Cc: Alexandru Petrescu , "" , Tim Chown , "Fred Baker \(fred\)" , Fernando Gont X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: alvarezp@alvarezp.ods.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBAXOWSJQKGQEL4XGEUY@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBAXOWSJQKGQEL4XGEUY@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 11 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 778 On 10/27/2013 02:26 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: >> allows privacy, > > IMHO big nonsense. The company (amongst many others!) you work for uses > amongst others cookies to track their people, and if they really bother > could even use natural language structure, search query types, and other > behavior for breaking this 'privacy'. Also note that even if the last > 64bits are random, your company should be more than able to say "oh, > there are typically X users in there, it likely is Y"... Then why deprecate EUI-64? -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBRXSWSJQKGQELR7UTNA@cs.luc.edu Sun Oct 27 11:03:19 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-ob0-f197.google.com (mail-ob0-f197.google.com [209.85.214.197]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA21A18EBC for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 11:03:18 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-ob0-f197.google.com with SMTP id vb8sf10393466obc.0 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:03:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=t1Lr7WtlVCZXgD0/ZBgY4PSzk+7VZ9LzkcbNKZm73+I=; b=XjmdeDyxg+Qw9YAWeWs1Ac4nJ7zSk9M3W0nLRPtlmpLxCX/pXZ2g03DdQt3m8Q0kDE +l4jvybpOa53CCZ1DWWllHl3/T8Bs1FQhXTcb1ppQDoGOXEkfNo2qyWUTiFNu30Bhdrx 4owyFIbrlZbZ1wOhomvCU1i1NFeXWkpHYEaCkSGFlW7sT6P+tP+P6SxtNgxSBDId1Ymn c3SEqVV4sjD/VeKSVO4VGm9K0JTIHrTxFhN9La+jnWWWvtbGxgDmoqlHKqkjYshwFNLZ DBSiWhOdq+pZCV3UqT5lEO5CXbn8upJesKoIbqUDHewHUmU0rqpbgflzaTohhF3m6ipT 9/9w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmM0cQvY0WbHsJVxU7qSXAZaHc86RQxNSn54Ob1BiWNAQcuzhknKLVrnS4g9tbgdNz5sc5Z X-Received: by 10.182.243.166 with SMTP id wz6mr2322572obc.19.1382889798524; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:03:18 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.118.6 with SMTP id ki6ls1209213igb.20.gmail; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:03:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.67.22.38 with SMTP id hp6mr21108288pad.53.1382889798323; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:03:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-f69.google.com (mail-pa0-f69.google.com [209.85.220.69]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hi3si9703067pbb.183.2013.10.27.09.03.17 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:03:17 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBRPSWSJQKGQEJAXB2JQ@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-pa0-f69.google.com with SMTP id kx10sf6226417pab.8 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:03:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.172.79 with SMTP id ba15mr7686922pac.26.1382889797881; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:03:17 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.78.65 with SMTP id z1ls1249612igw.21.gmail; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:03:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.195.36 with SMTP id ib4mr11843510pbc.56.1382889797728; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:03:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id cx4si9717766pbc.89.2013.10.27.09.03.17 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:03:17 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5166921F9CE3; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:03:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FB5221E80D0 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:03:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ndkdhaMkhPSt for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:03:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sobre.alvarezp.com (sobre.alvarezp.com [IPv6:2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fe96:8fec]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2850A21E80E3 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:03:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.208] (189.220.45.207.cable.dyn.cableonline.com.mx [189.220.45.207]) by sobre.alvarezp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E666A613D; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 12:03:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <526D3953.40102@alvarezp.ods.org> Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:03:31 -0700 From: Octavio Alvarez User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130821 Icedove/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Chown Subject: Why /64 [was Re: Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00.txt)] References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> In-Reply-To: Cc: Fernando Gont , Alexandru Petrescu , ipv6@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: alvarezp@alvarezp.ods.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBRPSWSJQKGQEJAXB2JQ@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBRPSWSJQKGQEJAXB2JQ@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 12 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 656 On 10/25/2013 12:30 PM, Tim Chown wrote: >> Let's keep this thread on-topic. ;-) > > Well, you're proposing deprecating EUI-64, so there is no longer any reason to be constrained to /64.... so your replacement should consider the possibility of it being used with longer subnet prefixes at some point in the future? http://etherealmind.com/allocating-64-wasteful-ipv6-not/ It quotes RFC 5375. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCC77QGWVMIRB4HVWSJQKGQEWOITWAI@cs.luc.edu Sun Oct 27 11:10:25 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-qc0-f197.google.com (mail-qc0-f197.google.com [209.85.216.197]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E7A917C71 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 11:10:25 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-qc0-f197.google.com with SMTP id x19sf14813445qcw.4 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:10:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:organization :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=U7NGNvK+s79xjIozLJ+0MymCpYV5pGMCe6VjXVF6xQY=; b=ikJqvtIxc5OdYqeUS2HiZq/4ciZ2mNVcT7Vo0Os5/sWlQxUt1tgvkw/9Bd+zx9LdXv Cs0+Y4WgHFoouM/nybgnZxNXeCZX4rJZQBR1CBWTN7Nw2D9zc/4v3XduXFjhsVjtyp9o mxBkOqf0dXs/X+ru/HMM/yjQOLvI8oXSJjn+RlJL3CJiwP8AglZcRfzfCMp4fOdhERzu l4Q9dvIkv9gSobJD8FkScNotb0aMFfMfcIBDt6EXYAULP1l7+BF6QfN07Q9Le1j4eHvb w6a6omWAs3wvRnpS480u529xxfGAyxZIXiHtoD6/35Tzxpsqmt0htuTxRNZg5TXrdcya 881w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm94Gdv4qzD5etCT8wjG0KFDfBqBu6Qkd3D35hQjbWipedtp10vmgrEP08fJqYQlnsLhQ7J X-Received: by 10.58.46.36 with SMTP id s4mr6518775vem.18.1382890224726; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:10:24 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.49.35.10 with SMTP id d10ls1723813qej.19.gmail; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:10:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.236.93.140 with SMTP id l12mr12183197yhf.66.1382890224534; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:10:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gg0-f199.google.com (mail-gg0-f199.google.com [209.85.161.199]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z5si6997421yhk.379.2013.10.27.09.10.24 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:10:24 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABB37VWSJQKGQEKMYGIBQ@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-gg0-f199.google.com with SMTP id h3sf7692715gge.2 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:10:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.236.32.74 with SMTP id n50mr18666104yha.13.1382890223946; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:10:23 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.16.97 with SMTP id f1ls1239637igd.14.canary; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:10:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.216.193 with SMTP id os1mr21197251pac.29.1382890223656; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:10:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id ru9si9691038pbc.318.2013.10.27.09.10.23 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:10:23 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29F9F11E8290; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:10:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 247F311E8182 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:10:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1VnaJ-cczFMb for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:10:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from icaras.de.unfix.org (icaras.de.unfix.org [IPv6:2a01:4f8:130:74c1:5054:ff:fec4:f7d4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CE0D11E8293 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:10:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kami.ch.unfix.org (kami.ch.unfix.org [IPv6:2001:1620:f42:99:7256:81ff:fea5:2925]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by icaras.de.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 56F7E801C2A2; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 17:10:03 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <526D3AE2.2020300@massar.ch> Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 17:10:10 +0100 From: Jeroen Massar Organization: Massar MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lorenzo Colitti Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526CE821.1000900@massar.ch> In-Reply-To: Cc: "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pld@math.luc.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABB37VWSJQKGQEKMYGIBQ@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBAABB37VWSJQKGQEKMYGIBQ@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 13 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 7507 TLDR: /64 on a link is great, keep it; /48 or /56 standardized per site is great for renumbering (at least the plan); IPv6 "privacy address" is not really private anyway, thus bad to list as a reason for keeping /64. On 2013-10-27 14:36, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Jeroen Massar > wrote: > > Cookies is just one of the many ways as per: > > http://panopticlick.eff.org/ > > > Ok, we shouldn't have gotten into this debate. I think that's worthless The point that I am trying to make, but the one you do not want to hear, is that "IPv6 privacy" does not exist, hence stating that it is a 'good thing for having a /64 or /48' is just stating a muyth similar to stating that "IPv6 is more secure than IPv4 as it has IPSEC" and other such myths. Thus, I'll nicely ask to stop making statements like that as they are not true, and never have been. (though they look like it, and as everybody keeps echoing them they sound like it, they are not) If you want proper privacy then use Tor or similar systems. (and lots of people debate if those keep you truly private...) I'll give another few comments on your statements below, just to show how easily they are debunked and thus how false they are. That all said, /64's are great IMHO. Though if there is a significant reason why people think the address space is too small and they need to get rid of the 'barrier', then write up a proper draft, spell out your reasoning and we can discuss that. >From my POV there is enough space, there are just ISPs who are cutting people short in how much they want to give out as they are stuck in IPv4-think, which is logical in a way when they have dealt with a lot of problems address squeeze or problems getting more space from a RIR. The solution to these folks is education, not changes to a proper architecture. Don't forget that one of the primary reasons for doing /48 at every site was that it allows "easier" renumbering (at least one can keep the same address plan ;) As for networks that want to use shorter-than /64, they can. DHCPv6 allows this scenario. The IETF though should never be recommending any of that and neither should the RIRs, who should actually IMHO enforce that LIRs give out proper address space to users and not force users to a single /128 when the ISP has more than enough space and can easily go to the RIR to get more when they need it (though if an ISP has to return for more they made a mistake in their initial allocation if it was only made a few years ago...). Greets, Jeroen -- > (every one of tens of millions of iPhones will return the same result... > ). But sure. There are other ways to track people than via IP addresses. Just tested with my iPad2, which is just another IOS device: "Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique amongst the 3.535.368 tested so far" the primary reason apparently: - User Agent, which included the exact User-Agent string not everybody is running IOS 7.0.3 yet = 18.95bits, 1/505052.57 - Browser Plugin Detail = 17.29 bits, 1/160698.55 Not everybody has Bria and other Apps that allow IOS to accept certain media types. Panopticlick wins again. That is HTTP indeed, but HTTP is what these devices are being used for, not IP level so much. And if you make one lousy connection outbound over HTTP that identifies you then that IP address has compromised you. Unless (but that is hard to see) IOS cycles the IPv6 address for every app; with very few apps doing IPv6 though that is hard to test easily. Also Google/Bing/Yahoo or whatever search engine you are allowed to use for IDFA for some extra work there to make it possible to track you. Though they claim you are anonymous, they track an identity which can be extremely easily linked to a person with help of . Next to that some apps just for 'fun' insert your mac address or other identifying information into their requests. Note that iPhones are predominantly HTTP users and thus have all the problems and tracking features that come along with it. If you are all behind a NAT it gets tricker, but nobody cares about IP level tracking, the applications take care of that; people love logging in to social networks. Those 10m iphones also do not live behind the same IP address, or even /48; though it is likely in a IPv6-environment that there will be a few thousand in a single /48 indeed, that is, if the operator choses to deploy them that way. It is often enough seen to deploy behind a transparent proxy. Still, statistics allow one to discern between them. > You probably mean the ISPs who require ND-proxy to get that /64 on your > side of the link? :) > > > No, you're misinformed. I mean real DHCPv6 PD. See below. I've not seen DHCPv6 PD live in action at any of these ISPs; I have seen lots of people do NDproxy tricks though. > Amongst others: http://www.ipsidixit.net/2010/03/24/239/ one of many > articles on this for free.fr (the "largest IPv6 > native deployment"). > > > Since forever Free.fr has been handing out /60 to all its customers Hence why the above linked article exists and many other similar ones. > (it's the maximum they can hand out with 6rd using their IPv6 allocation > size), and sends an RA with a /64 by default. I believe that if you > configure it they'll send out one different prefix for each port on the > box. Look for them in your logs; I'm sure you'll still see some ff:fe in > there, which probably means autoconf. > Liberty Global (Unity Media in Germany) is playing with DS-Lite, hence > you get 1 IPv6 address and a CGN IPv4 address (which is useless in > prime-time as those boxes cannot handle all the BitTorrent and other > heavy traffic flows). > > > DS-lite is not limited to one IPv6 address. Where did you get that from? While the protocol and the tools might not be limited to that, this is how it is being deployed. IPv6 (this whole thread :) is not limited to a single /128 either, but this is how it is being deployed in the wide by various ISPs (cheap hosters are a primary example, but there are also consumer ISPs, eg Liberty Global mentioned above) who do. > As for DS-Lite, well, you know, there's not a lot of IPv4 left. There indeed is not; in this specific example they converted people who had proper IPv4 connectivity to DSLITE and the former IPv4 addresses are now used for the hosting offering of the ISP. The pain is thus being diverted a bit. > Nope, Comcast doesn't do that - neither in IPv4 nor in IPv6. Some > European ISPs do. Where did you get your facts from? I didn't say that Comcast did, note that I pointed out for them the helpdesk article which describes, apparently stale, details about their deployment. > Please check your information before presenting it as facts in this sort > of policy discussion. We really don't want to come to the wrong > conclusion because we have the wrong data. I fully agree, see above about your iphones statement where you provide no facts but all statements. Note that I am pointing out documentation that is available. That these authoritative sources are out of date not much I can do about. Greets, Jeroen -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCC77QGWVMIRBKEUXCJQKGQE775OXZI@cs.luc.edu Mon Oct 28 01:54:32 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-gg0-f197.google.com (mail-gg0-f197.google.com [209.85.161.197]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8869F18EC6 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:54:32 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-gg0-f197.google.com with SMTP id r5sf3164716gga.4 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 23:54:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:from:to:date:subject:thread-topic :thread-index:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :acceptlanguage:mime-version:cc:precedence:list-id:list-unsubscribe :list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe:sender:errors-to :mailing-list:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :content-language:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3pt89EFGfNP5yexZEupEVEqxk7pKSPT+d1kUgNeG73M=; b=BrlxI6c4L7PGPDYSmxqZ6AtsGZPOeI00twJq1HOO/0wpWCFcfC6Ar4L7fN1GF7e66T wg+QBzZtu/OG1yOJ0y4zAi8UrfG3AKHVjoDVmvjd0/IRRQAtUvT2y/XzYTG+rF351d1U VeWQiErfKZwXoyMAqMnBkmaa7qVTaAt6nwD2EHJblOXC5y1iWPwFo//wihgtzdtpj8ai Ol/ET250H/nzFF7zeNioJLkgY5p/U2IO5I59HT3jpiYlViX3gHeyPFUYYskfxylInVjG nwtwwWe8VSLwJadADyZmKKxvuYcqsAV1ukV08JjmVAPCuK/ht24zfEW0yTE0f/YpzW5h qHaw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnZ+5CW3vq3GWL9ESdZjU0ONyb2tJjyFKZFdOpGUpgNVUpLmU5OR3filh3r8kPy8uvIAgFJ X-Received: by 10.224.128.131 with SMTP id k3mr22606250qas.0.1382943272166; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 23:54:32 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.49.39.104 with SMTP id o8ls1979957qek.38.gmail; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 23:54:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.229.223.194 with SMTP id il2mr27045868qcb.6.1382943272060; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 23:54:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qe0-f71.google.com (mail-qe0-f71.google.com [209.85.128.71]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y9si9727629qar.176.2013.10.27.23.54.31 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 27 Oct 2013 23:54:31 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBJ4UXCJQKGQEDTI2QEQ@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-qe0-f71.google.com with SMTP id 1sf17867600qec.6 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 23:54:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.52.64.177 with SMTP id p17mr7069120vds.3.1382943271640; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 23:54:31 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.138.229 with SMTP id qt5ls1518990igb.24.canary; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 23:54:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.67.4.136 with SMTP id ce8mr1158218pad.158.1382943271430; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 23:54:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id o4si11284990paa.165.2013.10.27.23.54.31 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 23:54:31 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64B9221F9F62; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 23:54:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1496D11E8119 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 23:54:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zg7QqbrqtY0M for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 23:54:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na3sys009aog136.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog136.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.85]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FE1A21F9F62 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 23:54:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MOPESEDGE01.eu.thmulti.com ([129.35.174.203]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob136.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUm4KGSAX4R7qFpA4PN4LVD7lCLu07X99@postini.com; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 23:54:24 PDT Received: from MOPESMAILHC03.eu.thmulti.com (141.11.100.132) by mail3.technicolor.com (141.11.253.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.298.1; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 07:53:47 +0100 Received: from MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com ([169.254.1.71]) by MOPESMAILHC03.eu.thmulti.com ([141.11.100.132]) with mapi; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 07:53:48 +0100 From: Wuyts Carl To: Mark ZZZ Smith , Lorenzo Colitti , Jeroen Massar Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 07:53:47 +0100 Subject: RE: Why /64 Thread-Topic: Why /64 Thread-Index: Ac7TVUR5DcG2PEmATt+9ENyW2Rfp9gAVDn0w Message-ID: <3135C2851EB6764BACEF35D8B495596806FAC25C59@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526CE821.1000900@massar.ch> <526D3AE2.2020300@massar.ch> <1382906625.63973.YahooMailNeo@web142501.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <1382906625.63973.YahooMailNeo@web142501.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pld@math.luc.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBJ4UXCJQKGQEDTI2QEQ@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBAABBJ4UXCJQKGQEDTI2QEQ@math.luc.edu Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 14 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 2728 FWIW. I'm working for the #1CPE vendor, managed CPEs that is, and I can confirm that majority of our customers ( ISP's/Telco's) is handing out a /60 or /56. It's very rare, although they exist, to only see /64s handed out to the (residential) CPE. Some do add ia_na to it to number the WAN interface, it's an exception to see slaac on wan to number wan intf these days @ our customers, although it is being used. WRT privacy etc Some of our customers re-apply the IPv4 approach on handing out IPv6 pds, i.e. with IPv4, they renewed the public IPv4 address every XX hours and re-apply this to ia_pd. Whether or not this is/was for economics rather than privacy purposes (more charged for static IPv4 @ some customers, but these being more business than residential customers) is another question of course. Regs Carl -----Original Message----- From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mark ZZZ Smith Sent: zondag 27 oktober 2013 21:44 To: Lorenzo Colitti; Jeroen Massar Cc: Subject: Re: Why /64 > >Specifically, I think the "quite a few [ISPs] give exactly 1 IPv6 address to their users" statement is not true in the case of mainstream residential ISPs - I think they all provide at least a /64, and more usually at least a /60. > During their IPv6 trial, Internode gave out /60s. When they deployed production residential broadband IPv6 in 2011 (which I worked on), the provided a dynamic /64 to the CPE via SLAAC (which allows direct connection of a PC as an alternative to using a CPE), and a static /56 via DHCPv6-PD. They fairly recently said they now have 10% of their customers using IPv6, as they've been enabling it by default on all new customer connections and providing IPv6 enabled CPE with it. Going by the published customer numbers, 10% is in the order of 16 000 to 18 000 services with native IPv6 connectivity. http://www.internode.on.net/news/2013/06/309.php >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >ipv6@ietf.org >Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCC77QGWVMIRBBN7XCJQKGQE4PNTVVY@cs.luc.edu Mon Oct 28 03:25:42 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-oa0-f69.google.com (mail-oa0-f69.google.com [209.85.219.69]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2726F18F0B for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 03:25:42 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-oa0-f69.google.com with SMTP id n12sf12534896oag.8 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:25:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:organization :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=owihdgP7VnA3NfJhpZyF1XSHGw6txWlesJBVkKMZGG8=; b=CMlDZYgZ3+5tqcnKco91iKacL6dtq8VS7+fzPm2tVie3Yes1i5JsHBZX1jytKJsVRa UJVF2rEW9inIPqJRo4Gvs2UnhcsH4yOAYvNX9SzzXtTcwThkdBusNm1nsYkUKGj84TeN PgpaUqTeoET+BE5d3aztemSxq3Qttpa4GL8jGEogzoph0ACs2D5RH9jZr5nTJCMSw9An udJyyaYF5uogKxhzV4ZF9xL6hrLXQegoQ+Xd37tjJ0rUzkcCPYvVJ67Tvo6Mf/GMtL5h ksR6ViUxh93NqeQBKHLhbhRnDtgvj/oCIVchNKbBH7zFAYqFwn4Kk/QpRdykShZCxB40 xFuw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkm8Kp+e2R/xlHrHobPZ3mziYRgp/+06co11PYjKGZs1uyu92aEmYJ5AvemxKfpvo7x6/0C X-Received: by 10.182.220.170 with SMTP id px10mr6340310obc.35.1382948741668; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:25:41 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.12.2 with SMTP id u2ls1528443igb.11.canary; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:25:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.133.198 with SMTP id pe6mr3662682pbb.10.1382948741453; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:25:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f70.google.com (mail-pb0-f70.google.com [209.85.160.70]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ws5si12253561pab.93.2013.10.28.01.25.41 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:25:41 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBBF7XCJQKGQEVGM4XHA@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-pb0-f70.google.com with SMTP id rp8sf11469464pbb.1 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:25:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.141.46 with SMTP id rl14mr316985pab.44.1382948741005; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:25:41 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.16.72 with SMTP id e8ls1604101igd.1.gmail; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:25:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.218.3 with SMTP id pc3mr15092304pbc.71.1382948740776; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:25:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id n5si12234785pav.214.2013.10.28.01.25.40 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:25:40 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DE6121F9DD0; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:25:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75E1111E822F for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:25:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G7lM6djSTKwQ for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:25:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from icaras.de.unfix.org (icaras.de.unfix.org [78.47.209.234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62D7911E821E for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:25:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kami.ch.unfix.org (kami.ch.unfix.org [IPv6:2001:1620:f42:99:7256:81ff:fea5:2925]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by icaras.de.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0D528801C2A2; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:24:54 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <526E1F5A.2070901@massar.ch> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:24:58 +0100 From: Jeroen Massar Organization: Massar MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Octavio Alvarez Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526D3706.5070409@alvarezp.ods.org> In-Reply-To: <526D3706.5070409@alvarezp.ods.org> Cc: "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pld@math.luc.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBBF7XCJQKGQEVGM4XHA@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBAABBBF7XCJQKGQEVGM4XHA@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 15 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 1106 On 2013-10-27 16:53, Octavio Alvarez wrote: > On 10/27/2013 02:26 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: >>> allows privacy, >> >> IMHO big nonsense. The company (amongst many others!) you work for uses >> amongst others cookies to track their people, and if they really bother >> could even use natural language structure, search query types, and other >> behavior for breaking this 'privacy'. Also note that even if the last >> 64bits are random, your company should be more than able to say "oh, >> there are typically X users in there, it likely is Y"... > > Then why deprecate EUI-64? I did not state anything like that. I have only raised concern about stating that "IPv6 privacy addresses" are a real thing. I am pro /64 per link and a /48 for Enterprise and at least /56 for Home-user sites. (/60 is too tiny and not flexible enough) Greets, Jeroen -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCC77QGWVMIRBRGBXCJQKGQETGEVQGA@cs.luc.edu Mon Oct 28 03:31:01 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-yh0-f69.google.com (mail-yh0-f69.google.com [209.85.213.69]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E12918F0B for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 03:31:01 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-yh0-f69.google.com with SMTP id v1sf18668766yhn.4 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:31:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:from:to:date:subject:thread-topic :thread-index:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :acceptlanguage:mime-version:cc:precedence:list-id:list-unsubscribe :list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe:sender:errors-to :mailing-list:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :content-language:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Kvfr0MP/ZEzi3T2IbpTzHhHQ/f7Mv4luSMeCHZRyZQk=; b=BIDB5Y8M5ltrErcvaw9BPq6JX7+j4H/R6Y3JoyZhjzvFRaMfvUW9Cxw7TC+5BrnMDK PNEEzZCT3DWDuj7bDzw2IyvTW0W8VfuHQXkYlZASxXBsQ9OHXYSgCSFXq2KzeF7UiVFC b/nj6BXvbs3v39D+dqzfTkORb5fmBPWbhuPSi88U7fqAs55NiIq7NfvMRqjqxWsALx7D esU6IzdIZhOfrfVO25jwY8wDfo92ithRki4L5REI7WGZP3wSumjw86ja0RmlmOZClW70 PcDr4VvLjxVob8EXtsq8kPSsDqvKFja4jiOt9AeQpobhuwdxH7HIamMJ1Ezq3cKKNVVu fW/w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnNOAan9u5CXpsJbAZzHA//caJk9Jkec+Q4CTZiTVGhi3OaDpYh9bfgo36A1a0a54C7lQwD X-Received: by 10.58.188.113 with SMTP id fz17mr8343005vec.26.1382949060831; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:31:00 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.182.129.41 with SMTP id nt9ls571019obb.31.gmail; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:31:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.60.179.52 with SMTP id dd20mr13965258oec.23.1382949060692; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:31:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f197.google.com (mail-ob0-f197.google.com [209.85.214.197]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id jw1si8442104oeb.54.2013.10.28.01.31.00 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:31:00 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBQ6BXCJQKGQEUIFSZRQ@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-ob0-f197.google.com with SMTP id vb8sf12588428obc.8 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:31:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.109.193 with SMTP id hu1mr4486429igb.6.1382949059927; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:30:59 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.239.165 with SMTP id vt5ls1518937igc.6.gmail; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:30:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.7.74 with SMTP id h10mr20151565pba.11.1382949059739; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:30:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id n5si12270657pav.69.2013.10.28.01.30.59 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:30:59 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F55511E822D; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:30:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D02DB11E822E for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:30:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OS-38MCZtWGK for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:30:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na3sys009aog113.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog113.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.209]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D05411E822D for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:30:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MOPESEDGE01.eu.thmulti.com ([129.35.174.203]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob113.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUm4goZWMrCQ5MgjSQYNClPDbKtfop0AK@postini.com; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:30:39 PDT Received: from MOPESMAILHC02.eu.thmulti.com (141.11.100.29) by mail3.technicolor.com (141.11.253.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.298.1; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:28:05 +0100 Received: from MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com ([169.254.1.71]) by MOPESMAILHC02.eu.thmulti.com ([141.11.100.29]) with mapi; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:28:05 +0100 From: Wuyts Carl To: Jeroen Massar , Octavio Alvarez Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:28:03 +0100 Subject: RE: Why /64 Thread-Topic: Why /64 Thread-Index: Ac7Tt1g3Lo1LesjSRUqunVFAFSxg5QAABgIQ Message-ID: <3135C2851EB6764BACEF35D8B495596806FAC25D4E@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526D3706.5070409@alvarezp.ods.org> <526E1F5A.2070901@massar.ch> In-Reply-To: <526E1F5A.2070901@massar.ch> Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pld@math.luc.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBQ6BXCJQKGQEUIFSZRQ@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBAABBQ6BXCJQKGQEUIFSZRQ@math.luc.edu Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 16 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 1758 +1 for the /64 on the link and /48 for enterprise, but "at least" a /56 for home (with /60 too tiny) ?? Can you elaborate on why you would need more than 4 bits subnets @ home? -----Original Message----- From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeroen Massar Sent: maandag 28 oktober 2013 9:25 To: Octavio Alvarez Cc: Subject: Re: Why /64 On 2013-10-27 16:53, Octavio Alvarez wrote: > On 10/27/2013 02:26 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: >>> allows privacy, >> >> IMHO big nonsense. The company (amongst many others!) you work for >> uses amongst others cookies to track their people, and if they really >> bother could even use natural language structure, search query types, >> and other behavior for breaking this 'privacy'. Also note that even >> if the last 64bits are random, your company should be more than able >> to say "oh, there are typically X users in there, it likely is Y"... > > Then why deprecate EUI-64? I did not state anything like that. I have only raised concern about stating that "IPv6 privacy addresses" are a real thing. I am pro /64 per link and a /48 for Enterprise and at least /56 for Home-user sites. (/60 is too tiny and not flexible enough) Greets, Jeroen -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCC77QGWVMIRBUWDXCJQKGQEJUCRXVA@cs.luc.edu Mon Oct 28 03:35:31 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-ob0-f199.google.com (mail-ob0-f199.google.com [209.85.214.199]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36AC718EEC for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 03:35:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-ob0-f199.google.com with SMTP id gq1sf12573406obb.10 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:35:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:organization :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:precedence:list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe :sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=cYqOVzSjj+TyrgormcuCpqbpiu5WE42F+QknBOR7uUQ=; b=VpDigfm0qfT2mn9Aq65S8tZ98gWcxdvPc+MEtyuXRolV2FSgBzKMYtNsQNngA4DRx7 SJbefPLAXFLlOo3M6XEeZwwMAnEDs4T9JJkYePfPiG95wMlPHI/FG1GVE2Lmn2aaS5m3 +AwKaHvTPGeRTEsDgWaQcxNdRX6GssQAVWJzLCBc3bDd/lcBSCa4rdwtZzGv4Kyt2Hsp V6PEJygpLjoPSjfpsRl0MAHf2xeqX7d/ZVH0l1nP5NQQpfAQBBlCd9vvrKr3epWWGTdD C/JcMXyq2cwvHvHjywbaSQ61WZkguhxXhjyRhWO2i/oEFNdbiNl48frmLOHWXnnB7mih 6Jpg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmEWBUVbvPCK1Ow5WzLqj7iE/r8NUKz3oXU2pSPdB7EpJJdszlS7/KZLzd02GVgOSNZTbEG X-Received: by 10.182.111.134 with SMTP id ii6mr6634829obb.38.1382949330791; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:35:30 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.182.128.103 with SMTP id nn7ls1055361obb.63.gmail; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:35:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.60.76.72 with SMTP id i8mr13935584oew.11.1382949330657; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:35:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f198.google.com (mail-ob0-f198.google.com [209.85.214.198]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id jw1si8453875oeb.54.2013.10.28.01.35.30 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:35:30 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBUWDXCJQKGQECBY5I6A@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-ob0-f198.google.com with SMTP id wp18sf12565014obc.1 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:35:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.126.137 with SMTP id my9mr6783800obb.13.1382949330408; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:35:30 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.39.106 with SMTP id o10ls1552764igk.8.gmail; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:35:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.216.234 with SMTP id ot10mr24532434pac.122.1382949330191; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:35:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id cx4si11288697pbc.269.2013.10.28.01.35.30 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:35:30 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A458011E8141; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:35:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73FEA11E822A for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:35:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qzDwg7YWPzw4 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:35:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from icaras.de.unfix.org (icaras.de.unfix.org [78.47.209.234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E4E011E8141 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:35:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kami.ch.unfix.org (kami.ch.unfix.org [IPv6:2001:1620:f42:99:7256:81ff:fea5:2925]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by icaras.de.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2DF49801C2A2; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:35:10 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <526E21C5.9080707@massar.ch> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:35:17 +0100 From: Jeroen Massar Organization: Massar MIME-Version: 1.0 To: trejrco@gmail.com, "" Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526D0F47.5040803@massar.ch> In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pld@math.luc.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBUWDXCJQKGQECBY5I6A@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBAABBUWDXCJQKGQECBY5I6A@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 17 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 3322 On 2013-10-27 20:04, TJ wrote: > >>> IMHO big nonsense. The company (amongst many others!) you work for > > uses amongst others cookies to track their people, > >> > >> Not sure we want to get into that argument here, but > > > > I _don't_ want to get into it here but I want to briefly support > Lorenzo > > on privacy. Privacy through controlling tracking of an IP address is > > very different in mechanism and result from higher layer end-to-end > > privacy. > > > First off, ++1 to Lorenzo on all counts (and Scott, Karl). You can +1 without facts or any backing details, but the fun thing is, it is no difference at all: privacy addresses do not make you "private" in any way or form. The only thing higher levels gives the adversary is a easier detection and correlation. But unless you have exactly the same packet signature and you are hitting the same sites as other people in your /64 or /48 you are unique. Please note that a IPv6 Privacy Address is for a period of time, not per application (at least I have not seen an OS do that yet, it could, but they do not). As such, when your HTTP browser goes to a site, that IP address is identified as you; then anything else goes to another site, and voila, they know that that connection is also related to you. Then your privacy time window expires, you connect to that second site again, which is not HTTP, but as you have been there just a bit ago, there is a high chance that that is still you. > It does not matter if you have 1 IPv4 address with 2000 people behind > it, or 1 /48 with 2000 people behind it. > > The algorithms to de-anonimize and differentiate between the real hosts > behind them exist. > > Cookies are one way to do that, complete browser profiles or other > differences in the client, be that the tcp stack level another. For > other protocols it is all much easier as they are typically already > authenticated anyway or have other bits. > > > > Having said that, FWIW - I partially disagree with Jeron here - it does > matter. With what exact part do you disagree and what part does matter? > A user can have browser extensions, multiple browsers (or > mutliple VMs with different OSes) and have a fairly good level of > privacy if so desires - as long as the underlying L3 provisioned does > not prevent it. Is may not be exactly mainstream / commonplace, but not > uncommon enough to ignore (IMHO) either. Even though that would give you separate addresses and would initially give that user separate identities that are being tracked, that user is still coming out of the same /64 or /48. Thus on the IP level indeed it initially looks like multiple users. But as various organizations are pretty good at estimating amount of users in a location, they can easily guess that it is the same person anyway. I'll state again: if you want privacy use a mixnet, eg Tor. (and even then you are exposing all your random bits, thus beware what protocols and tools you use) Greets, Jeroen -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCCNLEV6QAGRBJOEXCJQKGQETYZU56A@cs.luc.edu Mon Oct 28 03:36:54 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-qc0-f197.google.com (mail-qc0-f197.google.com [209.85.216.197]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30C7218EEC for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 03:36:54 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-qc0-f197.google.com with SMTP id x19sf16636097qcw.0 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:36:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:organization :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :precedence:list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=moAJ5Slt/7W7ArHge14ayivZuFtc1uOThTCkKKqXgKo=; b=kfQ9ENLVD38W8E/2eHnixrgvauJKStysjrVYqC7HHXWi53Eyaf8YSt9Fv6/tbwI02+ xwbSgd4c4w8NONWK9JeBmwDq5qammef1/e9MspqKRMv04WwxrkDlYYIE2YK3sE1Shi5m +X7dy+Ir0e7rxae7RFZhEeDgGWrxCggUjMHSW8nxOqfJnnEc1jMQUlzVi3LtDZG/aJ9Y /aNqhQO9LMUqsTEpSCJ9myVh96ROxIx0t0dWpSCHnk2B2Jg/WW07CQXAnc+quBru9h1c /qAw20nPBTWqt8SmiMhxDwzzmG+y3owkQloFe9+yVxXZD3TaoP9eszhz/A6pgNVa2tip BwOQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkUpr2vORcGpEv6hu9G/Io+YMKAdGCth67vRQoWmHCDweP6rrde4U+4XNv5wVG9R4Q0dfoT X-Received: by 10.236.4.69 with SMTP id 45mr22211823yhi.20.1382949413855; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:36:53 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.12.67 with SMTP id w3ls1552140igb.25.canary; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:36:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.248.227 with SMTP id yp3mr22453359pac.116.1382949413658; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:36:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pd0-f199.google.com (mail-pd0-f199.google.com [209.85.192.199]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id pk8si2234508pbb.349.2013.10.28.01.36.53 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:36:53 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCCNLEV6QAGRBJOEXCJQKGQER5PAFEQ@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-pd0-f199.google.com with SMTP id y10sf11796260pdj.10 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:36:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.189.41 with SMTP id gf9mr5722253pbc.3.1382949413519; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:36:53 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.43.232 with SMTP id z8ls1534493igl.32.canary; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:36:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.159.234 with SMTP id xf10mr1937629pab.139.1382949413289; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:36:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id cj2si11332716pbc.57.2013.10.28.01.36.53 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:36:53 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5655311E8146; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:36:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9F5311E822E for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:36:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4taIuaYnq6jI for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:36:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de [141.3.10.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4CBC11E8146 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:36:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from irams1.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.10.5]) by iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtps port 25 id 1VaiJI-0000ZM-Uv; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:36:30 +0100 Received: from i72vorta.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.71.26] helo=vorta.tm.kit.edu) by irams1.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp port 25 id 1VaiJS-0003us-9n; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:36:38 +0100 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (ip6-localhost [IPv6:::1]) by vorta.tm.kit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C735A8067F; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:36:37 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <526E2214.1060800@kit.edu> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:36:36 +0100 From: "Bless, Roland (TM)" Organization: Institute of Telematics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Chown , 6man List Subject: Re: Why /64 [was Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses] References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526B0A30.9060600@gmail.com> <526B0E15.8080602@si6networks.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 X-ATIS-AV: ClamAV (irams1.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de) X-ATIS-AV: ClamAV (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de) X-ATIS-Timestamp: iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de 1382949390. X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: roland.bless@kit.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCCNLEV6QAGRBJOEXCJQKGQER5PAFEQ@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBCCNLEV6QAGRBJOEXCJQKGQER5PAFEQ@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-UID: 18 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 1266 Hi, On 26.10.2013 09:41, Tim Chown wrote: >> OTOH, deprecating Modified EUI-64 is a local policy which is = >> incrementally-deployable. > = > Well yes, there=92s obviously a large deployed code base where /64 has > been assumed. And changing that assumption may simply not be > practical. > = > But=85 for example, some people who were concerned over the ND cache > problem have run with /120 and DHCPv6. I=92m not advocating that. > Indeed the homenet arch text specifically mentions not using such > =93tricks" where the ISP only allocates one /64 to a home which > requires multiple subnets. > = > I=92m just suggesting it would be interesting to spend a little time to > figure out where the /64 really is =93burnt in=94 so that, if there were > a desire to explore proposing a /80 or /96 or whatever for a future > SLAAC, we would have a clearer idea of what the implications would > be, and how/if an incremental progression to variable length SLAAC > could be facilitated. +1 Regards, Roland -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCC77QGWVMIRBVOIXCJQKGQEBKXVBBI@cs.luc.edu Mon Oct 28 03:46:14 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-vb0-f70.google.com (mail-vb0-f70.google.com [209.85.212.70]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA44418EEC for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 03:46:13 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f70.google.com with SMTP id m10sf15689347vbh.1 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:organization :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=EvY06jsku5E0NBme8CMUmNcHHcgKz85L1qH/sSR3bvo=; b=XcFeAFnZGBrI4A0mHtA0SDAPxQj/CMKxV81gGdeMzNLXQDsi1zwSpvZoSL//QtUDv0 rKHlhWNSMTWHIipIv2LQpHGuB6fkVkq/3+4V/O4bQgB8KopcjaFPtNwZUAfg3NyMrjVE Bbllr91VVsrEFMTrD9aA9QsE9F37T22bXZ+TVZzmhbNvXgGM2jxP3vn8bZY2yf5PYDyF jwGwJXMadtDIAhbBvXw8NEW8jXHPpFLPHYDuSH6E6NZIbQcL0pPBk7VWCXiOcdHmL00C QqbGalNB40oGCFKvX42ebJHnZ4eRVblZPk2WHjDtrnM0+2Xu8XYP/7Z0rEJIuX+KiL3w SymA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlDk8n30FxB74+gZdiqWFwj/I72+YIDBxSLrE8xN3l2y5I6l62ugafPPL4CZ5+boTuUib7k X-Received: by 10.58.198.116 with SMTP id jb20mr7912491vec.4.1382949973426; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.49.12.103 with SMTP id x7ls2051580qeb.14.gmail; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.236.84.81 with SMTP id r57mr139618yhe.88.1382949973296; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yh0-f69.google.com (mail-yh0-f69.google.com [209.85.213.69]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 63si8045670yhi.381.2013.10.28.01.46.13 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBVOIXCJQKGQEHKAGO3Y@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-yh0-f69.google.com with SMTP id v1sf18700134yhn.4 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.236.92.107 with SMTP id i71mr21611856yhf.1.1382949973231; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.102.5 with SMTP id fk5ls1525818igb.15.canary; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.190.103 with SMTP id gp7mr15095265pbc.74.1382949973022; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id bc2si12290559pad.187.2013.10.28.01.46.12 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C80D11E8236; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:46:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E5B911E823F for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:46:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 019Pejus7eIe for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:46:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from icaras.de.unfix.org (icaras.de.unfix.org [IPv6:2a01:4f8:130:74c1:5054:ff:fec4:f7d4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C63D211E8237 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:46:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kami.ch.unfix.org (kami.ch.unfix.org [IPv6:2001:1620:f42:99:7256:81ff:fea5:2925]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by icaras.de.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 06BE8801C2A2; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:45:56 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <526E244B.1030103@massar.ch> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:46:03 +0100 From: Jeroen Massar Organization: Massar MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Wuyts Carl , Octavio Alvarez Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526D3706.5070409@alvarezp.ods.org> <526E1F5A.2070901@massar.ch> <3135C2851EB6764BACEF35D8B495596806FAC25D4E@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> In-Reply-To: <3135C2851EB6764BACEF35D8B495596806FAC25D4E@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> Cc: "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pld@math.luc.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBVOIXCJQKGQEHKAGO3Y@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBAABBVOIXCJQKGQEHKAGO3Y@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 19 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 2086 On 2013-10-28 09:28, Wuyts Carl wrote: > +1 for the /64 on the link and /48 for enterprise, > > but "at least" a /56 for home (with /60 too tiny) ?? > Can you elaborate on why you would need more than 4 bits subnets @ home? Because I am one of the examples where I have, at home, already have more than 16 VLANs at home. But I might be special, I can only assume several other people here have similar large home networks. I have so many VLANs as I like things in separate networks, many do not even get Internet connectivity but they are globally addressable. Note that things go very quickly when you have things like IPv6 connected lightbulbs; though these are in a VLAN per room so that I can send a multicast message to that VLAN and turn them all on/off etc in one go. The original point of the /48 was that nobody should have to bother thinking about bits as there is enough space. Clearly some ISPs see some scaling issues inside their network and thus think that /56's solve that. Hence why ARIN at first then changed that limit. One routing slot though is still one routing slot, not more, thus if it is a /56 or a /48 should not matter. I am quite fine with a /56 for home users, it definitely works for me and thus should for really everybody else in a home network. But enterprises/companies should per default get a /48 per site so that it is always the same and they can at least number-plan wise renumber easily. Hence the /64 link (autoconfig is great), /56 for enter home and /48 for companies. Greets, Jeroen PS: one problem with the 'you get a /48' etc is that some ISPs steal the first /64 for the uplink, some others do not. Hence why if one is doing a network plan skip the first /64 as it will save some pain if you ever switch. (Though it would just mean changing one VLAN to other bits). -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCC77QGWVMIRBIGKXCJQKGQE6QPKEGA@cs.luc.edu Mon Oct 28 03:49:37 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-ob0-f197.google.com (mail-ob0-f197.google.com [209.85.214.197]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16E2C18EEC for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 03:49:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-ob0-f197.google.com with SMTP id vb8sf12658227obc.4 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:49:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:organization :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:precedence:list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe :sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=FF4gPIrc25nVu+0DLa9UiE/2a6EeAyjOHCREV1Nhy+Q=; b=hhPnmpJpTmSgKnbVTdV2g5MTxxoG6bipPSfv6MkAVCVEScReBKcw1y2rerBF6h+v0u kpZVX2nUJQZ6oyLq72NhisVn77RrFysvUp0GTxVCYdYOZ0wqFAgIRY+HdzsQWNcnKnOQ Z9aw5lmheUikdgKxwF2z2/+2WNjrZCr5MHfsFsJ9lEx+xKpFeOr3g+1Y7xvAIu3eVnk0 DRwKNadaD9yL8eQL/GWCG9xpTSfros04H1aFZigM6OqGtZ4BB6wTkpRLH/TAoUoSoB4w xJkpH7Zt6bGuB6xYB9MX2DCqSFwdIOUxos60bb3oX7dERX3XdNMM+oZTbwJ+jbjANThi M5PQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQng6+LWWi8AgwMQ98JFKmhjh8UDr0S7rZXHVP1q96NMdM7oaj8okNEc6vzA18jq+uW72BIj X-Received: by 10.182.47.168 with SMTP id e8mr6666212obn.12.1382950176752; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:49:36 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.49.17.7 with SMTP id k7ls1892416qed.96.gmail; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:49:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.224.11.68 with SMTP id s4mr28376384qas.88.1382950176628; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:49:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-f72.google.com (mail-qa0-f72.google.com [209.85.216.72]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id nu6si9210947qeb.131.2013.10.28.01.49.36 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:49:36 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBIGKXCJQKGQEYSTGCQI@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-qa0-f72.google.com with SMTP id j15sf10320990qaq.3 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:49:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.58.182.167 with SMTP id ef7mr8786607vec.15.1382950176360; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:49:36 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.23.12 with SMTP id i12ls1557871igf.8.canary; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:49:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.155.36 with SMTP id vt4mr24259756pab.93.1382950176120; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:49:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id kg8si12280695pad.299.2013.10.28.01.49.36 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:49:36 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24C0E11E8239; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:49:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB76E21F9D05 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:49:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u51VIGC+TeSC for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:49:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from icaras.de.unfix.org (icaras.de.unfix.org [78.47.209.234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4A3E11E8230 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:49:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kami.ch.unfix.org (kami.ch.unfix.org [IPv6:2001:1620:f42:99:7256:81ff:fea5:2925]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by icaras.de.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 02CD6801C2A2; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:49:11 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <526E250E.5050607@massar.ch> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:49:18 +0100 From: Jeroen Massar Organization: Massar MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Roger_J=F8rgensen?= , Scott Brim , "" Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pld@math.luc.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBIGKXCJQKGQEYSTGCQI@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBAABBIGKXCJQKGQEYSTGCQI@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-UID: 20 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 763 On 2013-10-27 15:50, Roger J=F8rgensen wrote: [..] > Privacy isn't just one single thing. That the user might lose privacy > elsewhere in the entire stack that make up Internet, that's NOT an > argument to give up /64 because we have lost privacy anyhow. I am NOT arguing that a /64 should go the way of the dodo. I am only stating that this "IPv6 Privacy Address" thing is a myth. > This /64 split is a good construction. I fully agree, but IPv6 Privacy Addresses is not one of them. Greets, Jeroen -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCC77QGWVMIRBHWNXCJQKGQELAKDKCY@cs.luc.edu Mon Oct 28 03:55:58 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-gg0-f198.google.com (mail-gg0-f198.google.com [209.85.161.198]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8824518EEC for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 03:55:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-gg0-f198.google.com with SMTP id l2sf7102536ggn.1 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:55:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:organization :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ETxlt5D0L7rVK+4Rgt0FsTz+OsJgaWLsLyoLzQMkwKw=; b=kyvkcK2nq0UsldlKtcPyYBvoEp0tFbqfkV6EmKeRX4BK548q0yxaWfsqCl5Jctgz7o eGciB7FLT8UvJB/XGjdD1pLfFmFAMTRvgHPPY/+Nf3KCvL1QRix8dUFnUTvKvuwpyrEm CcOwEK1WQOp4QeotHrLz11H6UT8he2b5Zjw2ZzuTbKK7/KT8eDufGOWYBZ5RwJ6nl+wu AzbTUiF68lbtQZliuc2plmEFEL2MoBH0ti6URe0l9IIlARG4ZuG+7P0E2taA9Cn/3QaV 6FP2YGr9Bm02taURspp4UqL5Y2y/zuwq3You9K6JmUfGdLE/A5pV9mJSisOJgg+NVeGL 1ZHQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlq0JGIniBRcl9I5dS17eWuRkBq9Fv+ry5qK5I1fpG5sxLbu2S01UDNoTF8jrxrt4rfKEbX X-Received: by 10.236.18.196 with SMTP id l44mr4255357yhl.52.1382950558191; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:55:58 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.182.171.70 with SMTP id as6ls1159293obc.50.gmail; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:55:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.28.35 with SMTP id y3mr860552obg.55.1382950558012; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:55:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f197.google.com (mail-ob0-f197.google.com [209.85.214.197]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i3si8497932obz.81.2013.10.28.01.55.57 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:55:57 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBHONXCJQKGQECEXQWAQ@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-ob0-f197.google.com with SMTP id vb8sf12717121obc.0 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:55:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.47.168 with SMTP id e8mr6674594obn.12.1382950557728; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:55:57 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.4.97 with SMTP id j1ls1508384igj.37.canary; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:55:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.130.234 with SMTP id oh10mr20703185pbb.0.1382950557503; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:55:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id yh6si12292420pab.324.2013.10.28.01.55.57 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:55:57 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F89D11E823D; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:55:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9463611E8244 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:55:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FtuNEAoSg7O7 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:55:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from icaras.de.unfix.org (icaras.de.unfix.org [78.47.209.234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 722B311E823D for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:55:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kami.ch.unfix.org (kami.ch.unfix.org [IPv6:2001:1620:f42:99:7256:81ff:fea5:2925]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by icaras.de.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 108F3801C2A2; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:55:21 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <526E267E.2070705@massar.ch> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:55:26 +0100 From: Jeroen Massar Organization: Massar MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lorenzo Colitti Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526E250E.5050607@massar.ch> In-Reply-To: Cc: "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pld@math.luc.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBHONXCJQKGQECEXQWAQ@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBAABBHONXCJQKGQECEXQWAQ@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 21 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 1328 On 2013-10-28 09:50, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Jeroen Massar > wrote: > > I am NOT arguing that a /64 should go the way of the dodo. > I am only stating that this "IPv6 Privacy Address" thing is a myth. > > > Can you do so on another thread, please? This thread is about /64. You do realize that YOU made that point right? >From your message on 27 Oct 2013 17:55:00 +0900: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg19238.html > I think the split /64 extremely useful because it provides a minimum > size assignment that makes autoconfiguration easy, allows privacy, > and gives users the capability to number multiple applications or > multiple devices without having to use NAT. As you wrote that, I noted that "allows privacy" is a myth. You brought this point up, I argued against that single point (and nothing else btw). If you do not want to discuss it, then you should not have mentioned it and you should not be arguing against it, simple. Greets, Jeroen -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCC77QGWVMIRB3OOXCJQKGQER25TA3Y@cs.luc.edu Mon Oct 28 03:59:25 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-yh0-f71.google.com (mail-yh0-f71.google.com [209.85.213.71]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8A5E18EEC for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 03:59:25 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-yh0-f71.google.com with SMTP id f64sf18718634yha.10 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:59:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:from:to:date:subject:thread-topic :thread-index:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :acceptlanguage:mime-version:cc:precedence:list-id:list-unsubscribe :list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe:sender:errors-to :mailing-list:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :content-language:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/7qV0CsQUP18UqvKUquLZ19iZFv7zdZZzVN3pkMUx/Q=; b=E9QjGz0MAN3q/K4W5YzAXpDCBSv5WPQnx2KsAs84p3hjx7HUGqpU/UqhbDF9y64Iyd re/1hQa75Beh91BCyUAMpNIsq5Ws+BafHRdGy4bEI9vV39oC5GEBmQQro2ppwMdXKQTn b4jfhIyx3XYOuRKDJx0EivzOb6q/k0Svyl/EI+T6+6P70DdOD1hyxqRz+RpNFvdAUmgq DKUvNRzjYxedkjXGnwmxPPoZE6K8E0XHfEKCYwj2HOnmsc3qE+3odSRXPyIyWXNmIlBy /4QpAQYRgqMQubFOK3MyZSP5Vcrmd3bgFKFrVw69NQhz6oohTmoq4pUaZbk2e/I8ZShK 4g2A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn/5xUAgGASfKnMG78lDmzXyM3QhSWym9Bdc9ipp4kHrX1BE/ISF5P9iPt2bmU2qTdquMkb X-Received: by 10.52.122.104 with SMTP id lr8mr7203802vdb.7.1382950765339; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:59:25 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.182.142.36 with SMTP id rt4ls1091287obb.69.gmail; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:59:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.60.93.67 with SMTP id cs3mr14111810oeb.12.1382950765200; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:59:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f199.google.com (mail-ob0-f199.google.com [209.85.214.199]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id qc5si8537931oeb.6.2013.10.28.01.59.25 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:59:25 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABB3OOXCJQKGQEVH45KRY@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-ob0-f199.google.com with SMTP id gq1sf12647662obb.6 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:59:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.241.129 with SMTP id wi1mr6617247obc.10.1382950765026; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:59:25 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.66.206 with SMTP id h14ls1556661igt.6.canary; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:59:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.13.104 with SMTP id g8mr20589768pbc.33.1382950764855; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:59:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id jp3si11375125pbc.156.2013.10.28.01.59.24 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:59:24 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B72B721F9E28; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:59:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27BFC11E8241 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:59:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FhR8Bwmsiyx8 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:59:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na3sys009aog130.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog130.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22D8F21F9E28 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:59:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MOPESEDGE01.eu.thmulti.com ([129.35.174.203]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob130.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUm4nRv/tx0LziBJxomDNVG7W7fyONVaW@postini.com; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:59:10 PDT Received: from MOPESMAILHC03.eu.thmulti.com (141.11.100.132) by mail3.technicolor.com (141.11.253.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.298.1; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:54:01 +0100 Received: from MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com ([169.254.1.71]) by MOPESMAILHC03.eu.thmulti.com ([141.11.100.132]) with mapi; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:54:02 +0100 From: Wuyts Carl To: Jeroen Massar , Octavio Alvarez Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:53:59 +0100 Subject: RE: Why /64 Thread-Topic: Why /64 Thread-Index: Ac7Tuiah1UlvtIjlTkqIFlJXFV1BpAAAJV/Q Message-ID: <3135C2851EB6764BACEF35D8B495596806FAC25DCA@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526D3706.5070409@alvarezp.ods.org> <526E1F5A.2070901@massar.ch> <3135C2851EB6764BACEF35D8B495596806FAC25D4E@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> <526E244B.1030103@massar.ch> In-Reply-To: <526E244B.1030103@massar.ch> Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pld@math.luc.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABB3OOXCJQKGQEVH45KRY@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBAABB3OOXCJQKGQEVH45KRY@math.luc.edu Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 22 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 2788 Ok, thx for the update. I don't think that you're the "default/avg" user here :-), hence I don't believe they will use your setup as an example to set for a specific ia_pd prefix length. I agree there's plenty of space, but lots of ISPs claim people said the same in IPv4 era, hence are cautious to set it "too big". Anyway, I must say to see lots of /56s, so looks ok in lots of occasion, but for sure no global consensus / approach on this, I see anything between 64 and /48 for the home being used today. Regs Carl -----Original Message----- From: Jeroen Massar [mailto:jeroen@massar.ch] Sent: maandag 28 oktober 2013 9:46 To: Wuyts Carl; Octavio Alvarez Cc: Subject: Re: Why /64 On 2013-10-28 09:28, Wuyts Carl wrote: > +1 for the /64 on the link and /48 for enterprise, > > but "at least" a /56 for home (with /60 too tiny) ?? > Can you elaborate on why you would need more than 4 bits subnets @ home? Because I am one of the examples where I have, at home, already have more than 16 VLANs at home. But I might be special, I can only assume several other people here have similar large home networks. I have so many VLANs as I like things in separate networks, many do not even get Internet connectivity but they are globally addressable. Note that things go very quickly when you have things like IPv6 connected lightbulbs; though these are in a VLAN per room so that I can send a multicast message to that VLAN and turn them all on/off etc in one go. The original point of the /48 was that nobody should have to bother thinking about bits as there is enough space. Clearly some ISPs see some scaling issues inside their network and thus think that /56's solve that. Hence why ARIN at first then changed that limit. One routing slot though is still one routing slot, not more, thus if it is a /56 or a /48 should not matter. I am quite fine with a /56 for home users, it definitely works for me and thus should for really everybody else in a home network. But enterprises/companies should per default get a /48 per site so that it is always the same and they can at least number-plan wise renumber easily. Hence the /64 link (autoconfig is great), /56 for enter home and /48 for companies. Greets, Jeroen PS: one problem with the 'you get a /48' etc is that some ISPs steal the first /64 for the uplink, some others do not. Hence why if one is doing a network plan skip the first /64 as it will save some pain if you ever switch. (Though it would just mean changing one VLAN to other bits). -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCC77QGWVMIRBTGUXCJQKGQEZ4PTEHA@cs.luc.edu Mon Oct 28 04:11:41 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-vc0-f197.google.com (mail-vc0-f197.google.com [209.85.220.197]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77D5C18EC6 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 04:11:41 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f197.google.com with SMTP id ld13sf5852033vcb.0 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:11:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:organization :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=AelODGUtkS11XhJ4qIFwXZa8E5WelfX9H9BvA19u+HM=; b=a1TY6gewBSDhbPMtf+YoWhJjPsMnd0Y83GdrcFfraE8ew2npT9vW2P2v3LFFP/looo 2mJERK+FyUBVw+YYCY0hYRABvpNqgQ9JWmxCAWchr3czAQUxJJ7OIk2CJMi635eE/1vA VoigEVwZEbGpj0f2ewqdjmFYcza/Dsqc+gjf51iTc/ArKnfhIEChkYP8dt8le2HBvBNy QyRPFwfKwbBEuaYl1SO0cQIeEtEtgN0vMpLWpMqXF9T0G+6bcansp9WeWXxlZirsHP3x F+t7Z4LnWlaQL+KH5rZgvnt5gcP1Ihkuvy25Hkgj+MSPGtsjhiCuBcQv8EEJl3vujo0r GKPQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkZ7LIc1PaVWepOrHI5Nkme/tIL1VlJkHww77LYO7hkT1Px59rSOcFl7Uyp1HoPoACfTa0t X-Received: by 10.236.34.134 with SMTP id s6mr4650410yha.49.1382951501007; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:11:41 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.183.3.38 with SMTP id bt6ls1106894obd.72.gmail; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:11:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.16.227 with SMTP id j3mr209321obd.68.1382951500883; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:11:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-f72.google.com (mail-oa0-f72.google.com [209.85.219.72]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id sy1si8541287obc.90.2013.10.28.02.11.40 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:11:40 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBTGUXCJQKGQE3MLROUQ@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-oa0-f72.google.com with SMTP id m17sf12671276oag.11 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:11:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.134.166 with SMTP id pl6mr4530054igb.2.1382951500483; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:11:40 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.103.1 with SMTP id fs1ls1519403igb.23.canary; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:11:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.136.227 with SMTP id qd3mr24025190pab.113.1382951500284; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:11:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id jp3si11386296pbc.276.2013.10.28.02.11.40 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:11:40 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A1CE21F9D5E; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:11:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3488121F9FF3 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:11:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uNVwkSElasud for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:11:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from icaras.de.unfix.org (icaras.de.unfix.org [78.47.209.234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03F7B21F9D5E for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:11:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kami.ch.unfix.org (kami.ch.unfix.org [IPv6:2001:1620:f42:99:7256:81ff:fea5:2925]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by icaras.de.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 35DAA801C2A2; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:11:05 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <526E2A2E.7030206@massar.ch> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:11:10 +0100 From: Jeroen Massar Organization: Massar MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Wuyts Carl Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526D3706.5070409@alvarezp.ods.org> <526E1F5A.2070901@massar.ch> <3135C2851EB6764BACEF35D8B495596806FAC25D4E@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> <526E244B.1030103@massar.ch> <3135C2851EB6764BACEF35D8B495596806FAC25DCA@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> In-Reply-To: <3135C2851EB6764BACEF35D8B495596806FAC25DCA@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> Cc: "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pld@math.luc.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBTGUXCJQKGQE3MLROUQ@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBAABBTGUXCJQKGQE3MLROUQ@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 23 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 2439 On 2013-10-28 09:53, Wuyts Carl wrote: > Ok, thx for the update. I don't think that you're the "default/avg" > user here :-), hence I don't believe they will use your setup as an > example to set for a specific ia_pd prefix length. I agree there's > plenty of space, but lots of ISPs claim people said the same in IPv4 > era, hence are cautious to set it "too big". We can't teach people to learn math nor can we teach them to think of routing slots and the fact that aggregation makes things so much easier. We also cannot teach people who are in the networking business and who request the prefix they get from their RIR to request a large enough block, and then are 'we are running out of space' or funnier, make comments about other ISPs getting large blocks as they did fill in the paperwork. The allocation lists show clearly that several ISPs have upgraded their prefixes to much larger sizes than the default /32 over time though; thus hopefully this happens before there becomes a need to do multiple disjunct /32s per ISP, though several have already gone for that model to 'cover the world' or 'being able to deaggregate per continent'. Like in IPv4 there are also already several ISPs again who are limiting the amount of time that a IPv6 delegation is routed to a single user, and they cycle it on regular basis; hence the user not receiving a static prefix and thus having to renumber all the time and thus it being quite annoying. These primarily are all business decisions though, little the IETF can do about unfortunately. There is enough documentation out there, the people in charge will go their own way without heeding the advice of their fellow networkers... > Anyway, I must say to see lots of /56s, so looks ok in lots of > occasion, but for sure no global consensus / approach on this, I see > anything between 64 and /48 for the home being used today. In the ARIN region ISPs are supposed to do at minimum /56, as this is in the allocation guidelines. Similar allocation guidelines exist for the other RIRs. Unfortunately there is no 'forced' requirement from the RIR and ISPs thus end up picking whatever they deem good for them. Greets, Jeroen -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCC77QGWVMIRB2WUXCJQKGQEZNNC7AQ@cs.luc.edu Mon Oct 28 04:12:11 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-pb0-f71.google.com (mail-pb0-f71.google.com [209.85.160.71]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1ED4818EC6 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 04:12:11 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-pb0-f71.google.com with SMTP id uo5sf7730106pbc.2 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:12:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:organization :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=9b2cBlAWR5Mns3o5kXlNEGTVCvtGvrh+tgH+WeqrnDI=; b=hU2MyWpAb9YKHpO1BprIzXiFBwi6zNMQ9f+Hje0Tvnd0Td8N5SJJ7epmke2jb5PSw2 kQnBUsKoPnV4fD53pMtnLYNDXmgvufkOOQzgUo9yY0ia9BR+bS7+t5g8KE0GzYc96rTj qUv/xxXtuDlwGjn77xqbX0JjdVYHwiyYxZhG2nxRpQnLy266DyfUlHiRGvoc0IyEHT6Y FfCL6/YsYaDWRfLeo4sOVTITb+Wgdg9nqphn3FYjCEFVKYVccMdTqYLFsHfttdQpS4T3 APFotUroRoKia7S5s0H6TZfQNkm+a3riulDokQPq2ruqmBZ08/SZPi9SBLpIXx9pgWnE 5kFA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm9fGO9zxqpwckHw8A/6cFTU1l+aMJUKIc1dJSOvMOlT1L/k4tox25BZFm/1ajxar8BF00z X-Received: by 10.66.250.233 with SMTP id zf9mr8374216pac.12.1382951530250; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:12:10 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.182.104.39 with SMTP id gb7ls1091373obb.58.gmail; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:12:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.45.195 with SMTP id p3mr14113105obm.29.1382951530088; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:12:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-f70.google.com (mail-oa0-f70.google.com [209.85.219.70]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h5si8569868oed.27.2013.10.28.02.12.09 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:12:10 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABB2OUXCJQKGQE244CELQ@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-oa0-f70.google.com with SMTP id j10sf12645067oah.1 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:12:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.53.165 with SMTP id c5mr6641928obp.0.1382951529920; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:12:09 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.41.100 with SMTP id e4ls1561453igl.9.canary; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:12:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.138.199 with SMTP id qs7mr225705pbb.199.1382951529742; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:12:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id n5si12366313pav.98.2013.10.28.02.12.09 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:12:09 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 526D111E816F; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:12:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 887C111E8248 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:11:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CB+Y2cAzXB+x for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:11:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from icaras.de.unfix.org (icaras.de.unfix.org [IPv6:2a01:4f8:130:74c1:5054:ff:fec4:f7d4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE37911E816F for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:11:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kami.ch.unfix.org (kami.ch.unfix.org [IPv6:2001:1620:f42:99:7256:81ff:fea5:2925]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by icaras.de.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2359D801C2A2; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:11:45 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <526E2A56.7070503@massar.ch> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:11:50 +0100 From: Jeroen Massar Organization: Massar MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lorenzo Colitti Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526E250E.5050607@massar.ch> <526E267E.2070705@massar.ch> In-Reply-To: Cc: "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pld@math.luc.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABB2OUXCJQKGQE244CELQ@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBAABB2OUXCJQKGQE244CELQ@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 24 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 946 On 2013-10-28 09:57, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Jeroen Massar > wrote: > > > I am NOT arguing that a /64 should go the way of the dodo. > > I am only stating that this "IPv6 Privacy Address" thing is a > myth. > > > > > > Can you do so on another thread, please? This thread is about /64. > > You do realize that YOU made that point right? > > > Yes, and I withdrew it. I withdraw it again. Please let's not talk about > it on this thread any more. Can you please provide a link to the message in the archives where you did? As I clearly did not see it. Greets, Jeroen -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBDP6LUPSY4CRB4O2XCJQKGQEY7Q62DY@cs.luc.edu Mon Oct 28 04:25:06 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-pa0-f71.google.com (mail-pa0-f71.google.com [209.85.220.71]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90FA818EC6 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 04:25:06 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-pa0-f71.google.com with SMTP id fa1sf8860131pad.6 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:25:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:message-id:references:to:cc:precedence:list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe :sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=p8XHZCPnUe/DIHlAVxtCyYOK2kyE1EPKX7LPuNw/Mv0=; b=NPa2qqWvSs1yKu7duF/IF/DfdrPJrzJNfg2KkvmZlcu+vfwcvpd045f/S4zC/a+m7h ANAKjIaxjQMj+zK+TezAiU3WH85USJmvGeXkksiG0v31yaLMvQnUzeH2P0JnSeKxSfsD 29w4dmZiDPpNykApSlxKMK1EdJiEJb7iNlPqCCybwBfyHGe/vq6jqbK1umU4X/fu+NYC qubjB+GvkzBAPNXd+PD5pIPZfMhfooy9bek+XEzW+KNcQ0Wjzuo0SvLu9Ns+9rdFqBEY 3U371iZqQNfCTZD6HRU00kfJyq/HcyBLdU5JSVlTEZh6gHzzlA+NbyTULgdOoiLGPACQ 9mxA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnOrDB6YdMtqjHnwhydfS2Dr2+r5x53He06M3Kn0ow3uqZ42booYzVEfCnVPgqNGeSdohZK X-Received: by 10.66.136.47 with SMTP id px15mr8275072pab.28.1382952305928; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:25:05 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.49.70.228 with SMTP id p4ls2011609qeu.43.gmail; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:25:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.26.6 with SMTP id h6mr27848981qeg.75.1382952305775; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:25:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-f198.google.com (mail-qc0-f198.google.com [209.85.216.198]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w14si9281560qeu.0.2013.10.28.02.25.05 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:25:05 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDP6LUPSY4CRB4O2XCJQKGQEAXYE5EI@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-qc0-f198.google.com with SMTP id k18sf16727152qcv.9 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:25:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.236.17.161 with SMTP id j21mr698422yhj.55.1382952305256; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:25:05 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.152.41 with SMTP id uv9ls997994igb.43.gmail; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:25:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.40.169 with SMTP id y9mr465882pbk.193.1382952305043; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:25:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id zl9si11457527pbc.54.2013.10.28.02.25.04 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:25:04 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEB7D21F9BDB; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:23:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF3A711E8254 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:23:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v-7KsOaOYHHh for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:23:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [IPv6:2001:9e0:803::6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6CD911E8248 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:23:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16C5D16; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:22:58 +0100 (CET) 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 10024) with ESMTP id vk4QvtImm7FX; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:22:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from macpro.10ww.steffann.nl (macpro.10ww.steffann.nl [37.77.56.75]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 95F4524; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:22:53 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\)) Subject: Re: Why /64 From: Sander Steffann In-Reply-To: <3135C2851EB6764BACEF35D8B495596806FAC25D4E@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:22:53 +0100 Message-Id: <1E6580AB-7010-4E45-8903-6126E82A9772@steffann.nl> References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526D3706.5070409@alvarezp.ods.org> <526E1F5A.2070901@massar.ch> <3135C2851EB6764BACEF35D8B495596806FAC25D4E@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> To: Wuyts Carl X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816) Cc: "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: sander@steffann.nl X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDP6LUPSY4CRB4O2XCJQKGQEAXYE5EI@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBDP6LUPSY4CRB4O2XCJQKGQEAXYE5EI@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 25 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 1370 Hi Carl, > +1 for the /64 on the link and /48 for enterprise, > > but "at least" a /56 for home (with /60 too tiny) ?? > Can you elaborate on why you would need more than 4 bits subnets @ home? Today 4 bits can be enough for simple cases with i.e. a home network, a guest network and maybe a home-office network. But IPv6 is meant to last for some time, and in the (near) future it is not that difficult to see networks for lighting and sensors (i.e. 6lowPAN) being added to that. And I'm not being very creative right now ;-) Besides: home users often don't understand the different between a wireless router and an access point, so they tend to daisy-chain them. In IPv4 this would cause multiple layers of NAT, in IPv6 you need more subnets. PS: Look at DT's plans, they are giving multiple /56s to each home. One for best-effort internet access, one for voice, one for streaming audio/video, etc. See https://ripe67.ripe.net/presentations/131-ripe2-2.pdf. I'm not saying this is the way everybody should deploy IPv6, but it is an example of using IPv6 address space in a different way. Cheers, Sander -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCC77QGWVMIRBGO4XCJQKGQEW6D7DWQ@cs.luc.edu Mon Oct 28 04:27:53 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-qc0-f198.google.com (mail-qc0-f198.google.com [209.85.216.198]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD8ED18EC6 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 04:27:53 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-qc0-f198.google.com with SMTP id k18sf16728272qcv.1 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:27:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:organization :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=VmuE/xmerVcPWSArjkPxXJBJwMCY8V9PL/NdnbW6heU=; b=JDNPOKRRdGC1wtoclpGfgDDAv0t75N9YEMRaizomeEdtSINBb87YkIy+bjjJ+uNYb9 kejAhs5/oD4UFq6DdvjiRA8q7Q7Fu683VYjCgN8GYH7QqO0QeHgXQb7zyEhYxkcQXreZ EmS0+8uRdvWDoXzonhPuvffne0nmwIA4rhhEyXIZLBHFuRetL/Z8u/6V+2hPFpLGTREC UAQso/nQkGo0iN8rmGtYi/dlNrLTfMuYEyNJxmPYrIGi0v+kJUBBDy/0Vu+nX21+NKxG aJmi2ZMDS7qrpKe+Js4pg0d+3t6V0xGNBHFSZ3yWqX/I2opY++pimo/pVUhhp5Qiz4PL N6Qg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmvhT9kUWcc7krJweLBzXtattmQgJ/vCXIaLBYbrfm7DrbCVCq859559LU4kpNuF9wbpAGJ X-Received: by 10.224.168.200 with SMTP id v8mr20202863qay.7.1382952473293; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:27:53 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.114.134 with SMTP id jg6ls1522958igb.15.gmail; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:27:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.130.72 with SMTP id oc8mr271526pbb.200.1382952473067; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:27:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-f69.google.com (mail-pa0-f69.google.com [209.85.220.69]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t2si11462283pbq.68.2013.10.28.02.27.52 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:27:52 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBGG4XCJQKGQEH4CWJTQ@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-pa0-f69.google.com with SMTP id kx10sf7620777pab.4 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:27:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.218.99 with SMTP id pf3mr8149238pac.8.1382952472590; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:27:52 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.57.41 with SMTP id f9ls1551779igq.28.canary; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:27:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.155.36 with SMTP id vt4mr24399705pab.93.1382952472341; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:27:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id kg8si12394952pad.183.2013.10.28.02.27.52 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:27:52 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB95411E811A; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:27:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0035A11E816F for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:27:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WQ9wgUsL+Vql for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:27:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from icaras.de.unfix.org (icaras.de.unfix.org [IPv6:2a01:4f8:130:74c1:5054:ff:fec4:f7d4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FF4111E823A for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:27:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kami.ch.unfix.org (kami.ch.unfix.org [IPv6:2001:1620:f42:99:7256:81ff:fea5:2925]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by icaras.de.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 952F2801C2A2; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:27:35 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <526E2E0C.904@massar.ch> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:27:40 +0100 From: Jeroen Massar Organization: Massar MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lorenzo Colitti Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526E250E.5050607@massar.ch> <526E267E.2070705@massar.ch> <526E2A56.7070503@massar.ch> In-Reply-To: Cc: "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pld@math.luc.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBGG4XCJQKGQEH4CWJTQ@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBAABBGG4XCJQKGQEH4CWJTQ@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 26 Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: Content-Length: 1127 On 2013-10-28 10:22, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Jeroen Massar > wrote: > > > Yes, and I withdrew it. I withdraw it again. Please let's not talk > about > > it on this thread any more. > > Can you please provide a link to the message in the archives where you > did? As I clearly did not see it. > > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg19246.html : "sure. > There are other ways to track people than via IP addresses." Which shows that you totally missed the point with that statement, and you surely did not 'withdrew' your point. See my other messages: IPv6 Privacy addresses are a myth, they do not work. You can track people even when you just see IP addresses and ignore the upper layers. The upper layers just make it easier. Greets, Jeroen -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCC77QGWVMIRBE7EXCJQKGQEZRBHDJQ@cs.luc.edu Mon Oct 28 04:44:52 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-ie0-f198.google.com (mail-ie0-f198.google.com [209.85.223.198]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0169618EBF for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 04:44:51 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f198.google.com with SMTP id tp5sf19948501ieb.1 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:44:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:from:to:date:subject:thread-topic :thread-index:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :acceptlanguage:mime-version:cc:precedence:list-id:list-unsubscribe :list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe:sender:errors-to :mailing-list:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :content-language:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YhZyJlQ+xsD/LKIsM00qaERyQSAr5yJZeTpmQ65wOjo=; b=G9wiPPWwheWCwuTlNvkgRe4jItHi0zqSe3OMHEmHsnPsGGaWPSZmAcqZNzD+S/4uDY s/PWAv2bJqfo/EzcVBon8lXJPvfHi7QP5laI6yLK7zs1x08ZAat7liCGj3SwgjDTbMAZ Y4HJH0D4/B14PD5uxPWelpHaEuRnsTrW/z/OsL9Z7duH2Rue0h9+toY+L57c0PVl+GwU n+y5settnjUYzcQunpEvjxrZaSVKh3lc/05D2UI+Ai4uwyQR5vU2XgMWcNZ90CfJpEkS ppocyouxQXht1N5vXwTi+SBNcBXwwVFr5eqfTA6GLihTf/5wbD9D/FqYm0piz9ofF4qQ 4tgw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQldAk4V4NH9PHeBa94/x+o4oLmzlnIw015vMRIitMpqwz+vJZ/RL3W25dzRoJXnOUZT1sLP X-Received: by 10.182.247.102 with SMTP id yd6mr6778550obc.39.1382953491565; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:44:51 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.49.59.82 with SMTP id x18ls1958868qeq.88.gmail; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:44:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.58.156.106 with SMTP id wd10mr12913542veb.7.1382953491420; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:44:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ve0-f198.google.com (mail-ve0-f198.google.com [209.85.128.198]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id mq14si5597580vcb.56.2013.10.28.02.44.50 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:44:50 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBEXEXCJQKGQESXZSDQQ@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-ve0-f198.google.com with SMTP id c14sf12899158vea.1 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:44:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.236.36.39 with SMTP id v27mr20237817yha.5.1382953490147; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:44:50 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.67.48 with SMTP id k16ls1555437igt.40.gmail; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:44:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.227.39 with SMTP id rx7mr25060345pac.44.1382953489938; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:44:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id y7si9360872pbi.203.2013.10.28.02.44.49 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:44:49 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B307B21F9D87; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:44:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CD1321F9D12 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:44:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cKqUz1dehXc6 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:44:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na3sys009aog126.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog126.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.155]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D41521F9F84 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:42:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MOPESEDGE01.eu.thmulti.com ([129.35.174.203]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob126.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUm4xojDL99t2vGgnoObiyYlFo133XEUW@postini.com; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:43:12 PDT Received: from MOPESMAILHC01.eu.thmulti.com (141.11.100.25) by mail3.technicolor.com (141.11.253.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.298.1; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:38:32 +0100 Received: from MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com ([169.254.1.71]) by MOPESMAILHC01.eu.thmulti.com ([141.11.100.25]) with mapi; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:38:33 +0100 From: Wuyts Carl To: Sander Steffann Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:38:31 +0100 Subject: RE: Why /64 Thread-Topic: Why /64 Thread-Index: Ac7Tv1dWghI7+5IHT4uKKWRoRRDQxQAAThJA Message-ID: <3135C2851EB6764BACEF35D8B495596806FAC25ECF@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526D3706.5070409@alvarezp.ods.org> <526E1F5A.2070901@massar.ch> <3135C2851EB6764BACEF35D8B495596806FAC25D4E@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> <1E6580AB-7010-4E45-8903-6126E82A9772@steffann.nl> In-Reply-To: <1E6580AB-7010-4E45-8903-6126E82A9772@steffann.nl> Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pld@math.luc.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBEXEXCJQKGQESXZSDQQ@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBAABBEXEXCJQKGQESXZSDQQ@math.luc.edu Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 27 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 2437 Hi Sander, Don't worry, I agree upon your statements wrt size of prefix, and always recommend our customers a /56 (or bigger), and this is for residential CPE, so I'm not really talking about "home-office" networks. Reality today however says that the majority of users today is using a single /64 which I believe makes the ISP think on the size of the ia_pd to be used, hence they might select something smaller, also to get more value in the future for using bigger ones (for more advanced users), so it's sort of a trade-off I believe. Nevertheless, /64, the topic of these mails, on links should be kept imho, so not start tweaking them smaller just because some ISPs only handout some smaller ia_pd. Arin guidelines seems to be in place for /56, should not be a bad idea to have this being used globally, but might not be that easy to enforce. Regs Carl -----Original Message----- From: Sander Steffann [mailto:sander@steffann.nl] Sent: maandag 28 oktober 2013 10:23 To: Wuyts Carl Cc: Jeroen Massar; Octavio Alvarez; Subject: Re: Why /64 Hi Carl, > +1 for the /64 on the link and /48 for enterprise, > > but "at least" a /56 for home (with /60 too tiny) ?? > Can you elaborate on why you would need more than 4 bits subnets @ home? Today 4 bits can be enough for simple cases with i.e. a home network, a guest network and maybe a home-office network. But IPv6 is meant to last for some time, and in the (near) future it is not that difficult to see networks for lighting and sensors (i.e. 6lowPAN) being added to that. And I'm not being very creative right now ;-) Besides: home users often don't understand the different between a wireless router and an access point, so they tend to daisy-chain them. In IPv4 this would cause multiple layers of NAT, in IPv6 you need more subnets. PS: Look at DT's plans, they are giving multiple /56s to each home. One for best-effort internet access, one for voice, one for streaming audio/video, etc. See https://ripe67.ripe.net/presentations/131-ripe2-2.pdf. I'm not saying this is the way everybody should deploy IPv6, but it is an example of using IPv6 address space in a different way. Cheers, Sander -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCC77QGWVMIRBMHFXCJQKGQE6S7ESMY@cs.luc.edu Mon Oct 28 04:47:29 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-oa0-f72.google.com (mail-oa0-f72.google.com [209.85.219.72]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26BC418EBF for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 04:47:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-oa0-f72.google.com with SMTP id m17sf12784487oag.7 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:47:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:organization :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=LptBZACytC2Q1cy57M5NUXWXqZ9MFzcgskz8QJ9/ChA=; b=QNqndvbj6wN1ppg3yWnA+BZCdRUDtfr5uJK9ahnuexIEOe+jUWdwwHMfkge6HJgURW g94UMrBbV52hfKJBOaZe9pZABcoOWzvh33VEueGMWiSdtAu+TmyrX5l+73U2PuQ+Kgxu a2wWtje/GHcPezbMgeCspOVVFvXS+1bVn7X6d4gEkKkPehpDWzRlFZLYcO9NpX//87B5 9NGdOtwYqbSvhmp1n/gQmCMZz8sy7qW9scG+SZozyfPsNXaSquPdCHfJtBU4vBf/r06v QFijDWyOgyIiY9dJxy4a4ZgPmoXUWFqcodkGTRzMTUqsGaBuTR9SF1+OjpE+JMeEGvm0 rAzg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQku0ZAZIzx6TDtLQQmCRhp4tMgZ5XJbdwT/0dhi7Qvy/xHuCpD/cSTm3f58NfsKNbtCP9xE X-Received: by 10.182.108.136 with SMTP id hk8mr6752749obb.11.1382953648719; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:47:28 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.47.105 with SMTP id c9ls1646830ign.0.gmail; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:47:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.191.137 with SMTP id gy9mr1980359pac.147.1382953648515; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:47:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f69.google.com (mail-pb0-f69.google.com [209.85.160.69]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id zl9si11492097pbc.174.2013.10.28.02.47.28 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:47:28 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBMHFXCJQKGQEZUHP77Y@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-pb0-f69.google.com with SMTP id md4sf2527172pbc.0 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:47:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.137.163 with SMTP id qj3mr5808212pbb.4.1382953648454; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:47:28 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.130.108 with SMTP id od12ls1603620igb.1.canary; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:47:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.6.66 with SMTP id y2mr15219547pby.60.1382953648239; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:47:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id cj2si11509833pbc.57.2013.10.28.02.47.27 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:47:28 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B8DF21F9D5E; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:47:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CEAB21F9CE8 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:47:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6KCMlXrMpkK1 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:47:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from icaras.de.unfix.org (icaras.de.unfix.org [IPv6:2a01:4f8:130:74c1:5054:ff:fec4:f7d4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF40921F9DBA for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:47:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kami.ch.unfix.org (kami.ch.unfix.org [IPv6:2001:1620:f42:99:7256:81ff:fea5:2925]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by icaras.de.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A1FD3801C2A2; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:46:54 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <526E3294.1040604@massar.ch> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:47:00 +0100 From: Jeroen Massar Organization: Massar MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lorenzo Colitti Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526E250E.5050607@massar.ch> <526E267E.2070705@massar.ch> <526E2A56.7070503@massar.ch> <526E2E0C.904@massar.ch> In-Reply-To: Cc: "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pld@math.luc.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBMHFXCJQKGQEZUHP77Y@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBAABBMHFXCJQKGQEZUHP77Y@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 28 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 958 On 2013-10-28 10:42, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Jeroen Massar > wrote: > > See my other messages: IPv6 Privacy addresses are a myth, they do not > work. You can track people even when you just see IP addresses and > ignore the upper layers. The upper layers just make it easier. > > > If you want to discuss this further, please take it to a separate thread. As I quoted a few messages before you are the one who put it in this thread. What you are asking is to just forget about it, as you clearly do not want to accept my point though, I'll do just that, I've made my point clear enough. Greets, Jeroen -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBDP6LUPSY4CRBGHKXCJQKGQEGOQN6WA@cs.luc.edu Mon Oct 28 04:57:45 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-ob0-f199.google.com (mail-ob0-f199.google.com [209.85.214.199]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 520AA18EBF for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 04:57:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-ob0-f199.google.com with SMTP id gq1sf12828127obb.2 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:57:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:message-id:references:to:cc:precedence:list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe :sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=mutKQqtLHQDfcIRHOs2WHxflCmHsVEn3uvXyHsyY5ag=; b=P9k3W+J0hcYP7tFVDolv9TBygyPQb1zXJL9UtuCrJnxSHQVLNeBdWgPrk+lzsLOBzX wusJwtuShq3YJzUhgQaXyQgNmseVyvBEkiPevYsk23yhd5PMM85UGplC9ifbjwYuCYBI hlW5THQ8Br+zKJk2UJ5hi6l6w/h08ltQmZzUStSskXOelbEbFnunId1muFqFwOG6RB/+ rpai0R2ecxho4rn2h65ioYC5uxIPxLbuafkhUD+kpsZH7NpkPIrXTxHENHAb47aD9k7O sA3rxI8P604MI3qRIMtlUSlALSobyapnRyCaRAJulJuIm2UfVQj13hhmLXUP1y8Bwc24 Lbyw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlhRRwT7HYaN7m32IvY8qKvb85Re7m6hvanzYp63rUxxReGVtfYrZAoaCRZaZUINTAr8MVB X-Received: by 10.182.105.227 with SMTP id gp3mr6560359obb.23.1382954264973; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:57:44 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.49.12.103 with SMTP id x7ls2064145qeb.14.gmail; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:57:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.52.98.194 with SMTP id ek2mr10669586vdb.11.1382954264854; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:57:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-f200.google.com (mail-vc0-f200.google.com [209.85.220.200]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c1si5598872vcs.103.2013.10.28.02.57.44 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:57:44 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDP6LUPSY4CRBGHKXCJQKGQEKLZAJQQ@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-vc0-f200.google.com with SMTP id ht10sf6960806vcb.7 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:57:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.236.112.161 with SMTP id y21mr4372511yhg.51.1382954264587; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:57:44 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.30.170 with SMTP id t10ls1598673igh.9.gmail; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:57:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.66.42 with SMTP id c10mr24334172pat.98.1382954264397; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:57:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id hb3si12459408pac.297.2013.10.28.02.57.43 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:57:44 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 710A011E8140; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:57:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B93111E815A for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:57:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TYS3OQx9oKHg for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:57:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [IPv6:2001:9e0:803::6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1709911E8158 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:57:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3A6524; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:57:14 +0100 (CET) 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 10024) with ESMTP id eNezMcm0k9Sj; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:57:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from macpro.10ww.steffann.nl (macpro.10ww.steffann.nl [37.77.56.75]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 902FB16; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:57:12 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\)) Subject: Re: Why /64 From: Sander Steffann In-Reply-To: <3135C2851EB6764BACEF35D8B495596806FAC25ECF@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:57:12 +0100 Message-Id: <7DE758C2-CD72-444B-B321-4CEB2066F06D@steffann.nl> References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526D3706.5070409@alvarezp.ods.org> <526E1F5A.2070901@massar.ch> <3135C2851EB6764BACEF35D8B495596806FAC25D4E@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> <1E6580AB-7010-4E45-8903-6126E82A9772@steffann.nl> <3135C2851EB6764BACEF35D8B495596806FAC25ECF@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> To: Wuyts Carl X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816) Cc: "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: sander@steffann.nl X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDP6LUPSY4CRBGHKXCJQKGQEKLZAJQQ@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBDP6LUPSY4CRBGHKXCJQKGQEKLZAJQQ@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 29 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 1464 Hi Carl, > Don't worry, I agree upon your statements wrt size of prefix, and always recommend our customers a /56 (or bigger), and this is for residential CPE, so I'm not really talking about "home-office" networks. Don't underestimate how many people work from home one or two days a week :-) > Reality today however says that the majority of users today is using a single /64 which I believe makes the ISP think on the size of the ia_pd to be used, hence they might select something smaller, also to get more value in the future for using bigger ones (for more advanced users), so it's sort of a trade-off I believe. They can get as many IPv6 addresses as they need (even if giving each customer a /48) from the RIPE NCC, so the only reason to do this is to promote more expensive subscriptions. This saddens me, but I guess they will learn when users start complaining... > Nevertheless, /64, the topic of these mails, on links should be kept imho, so not start tweaking them smaller just because some ISPs only handout some smaller ia_pd. Arin guidelines seems to be in place for /56, should not be a bad idea to have this being used globally, but might not be that easy to enforce. Ack! Sander -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBGVDXKJQKGQE4LWY7VA@cs.luc.edu Mon Oct 28 11:32:27 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-qc0-f198.google.com (mail-qc0-f198.google.com [209.85.216.198]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 438F918EBC for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 11:32:27 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-qc0-f198.google.com with SMTP id k18sf17751659qcv.9 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:32:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=3bKKdWKBrrHT/G1ez2nNW6IsXK9Xlo/P/LMwj1rEpv4=; b=DQo60XIGZcxA4RfDVIBx1DddUNhh/VFjzGWn/DK+l7mq8yGwbSCu640UV+lBtdtfiM TeiBd3E263Ek63qfKDcnEFoY37PgsDZrjoQscrYEtxLnaftvOPwIFzeJcimbwyPD/JTS o2KfoEIFGqouSvhYLREUYgKkW26jtQtn1VMPUH0zmW/aUMOdI4r37AU3jkfGuQoeZnhr vAW7wg5H6Z3R+wXUEtcZetFCFOoLSCJ1Io1OZJusjqqQ90raNmfX3A9Pr4qUgbZP0SEG eByyPtDJQ9bbO4xQea4AcMKEeWiIZChMPSMCRIr1PXP5E4FU+U3MHU77yBtlvVwrAZ2Q dy/Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQliQuA8Ix26GhVLs6Z4XcrWRwe+gBXVgC52mQ55Nm4V67h38UZQ8UKQ4TF5HpTQA4N+qmN3 X-Received: by 10.236.142.38 with SMTP id h26mr1285700yhj.57.1382977946668; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:32:26 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.176.193 with SMTP id ck1ls1775907igc.22.gmail; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:32:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.69.25.38 with SMTP id in6mr2706414pbd.178.1382977946426; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:32:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-f70.google.com (mail-pa0-f70.google.com [209.85.220.70]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id mi5si13465471pab.77.2013.10.28.09.32.26 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:32:26 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBGVDXKJQKGQE3X4Z3BQ@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-pa0-f70.google.com with SMTP id fb1sf12378665pad.5 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:32:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.226.8 with SMTP id ro8mr3500739pbc.1.1382977946260; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:32:26 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.4.97 with SMTP id j1ls1708336igj.37.canary; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:32:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.216.129 with SMTP id oq1mr26815452pac.75.1382977945988; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:32:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id gn4si12461055pbc.351.2013.10.28.09.32.25 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:32:25 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A020311E8292; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:32:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F57011E82BD for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:32:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S4sF9ondDuAs for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:32:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sobre.alvarezp.com (sobre.alvarezp.com [173.230.155.94]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B52E511E8292 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:32:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.251] (189.220.45.207.cable.dyn.cableonline.com.mx [189.220.45.207]) by sobre.alvarezp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5F5C1613D; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:32:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <526E91A3.8000807@alvarezp.ods.org> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:32:35 -0700 From: Octavio Alvarez User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130821 Icedove/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexandru Petrescu Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526D3706.5070409@alvarezp.ods.org> <526E43E8.3080601@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <526E43E8.3080601@gmail.com> Cc: "" , Tim Chown , "Fred Baker \(fred\)" , Fernando Gont X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: alvarezp@alvarezp.ods.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBGVDXKJQKGQE3X4Z3BQ@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBGVDXKJQKGQE3X4Z3BQ@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-UID: 30 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 1061 On 10/28/2013 04:00 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > Le 27/10/2013 16:53, Octavio Alvarez a =E9crit : >> On 10/27/2013 02:26 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: >>>> allows privacy, >>> >>> IMHO big nonsense. The company (amongst many others!) you work for uses >>> amongst others cookies to track their people, and if they really bother >>> could even use natural language structure, search query types, and other >>> behavior for breaking this 'privacy'. Also note that even if the last >>> 64bits are random, your company should be more than able to say "oh, >>> there are typically X users in there, it likely is Y"... >> >> Then why deprecate EUI-64? > = > I think there is a problem in naming that draft. I meant "why deprecate EUI-64 as device-ID in IPv6 addresses". Sorry if this starts a misconception. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBO5KXKJQKGQEMO45ZLQ@cs.luc.edu Mon Oct 28 11:47:56 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-qe0-f69.google.com (mail-qe0-f69.google.com [209.85.128.69]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1DC418F06 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 11:47:55 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-qe0-f69.google.com with SMTP id 6sf19372664qeb.4 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:47:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=sgX4h6htes9c0GwmDoExb2qbtUzU7Rnnof0/+N+Y1w4=; b=PPrRKU2B2bx9b7xl2KAbatlMHWcRyEAQfQQyNy2wgoqEvdfZ/NecOB3pwWKuRv8SM2 Z2LMVs9eI51exc3wF0NgDEtTr807m6NA7pAtmGYYAagSKbQU1d8i79dSWN+hBjLB85Pw zl15FFAkOHcLIJ0EQLKG3/m+FyOYRh4clxFJA0nuwjvu8OtMHwDRPqTkmWla9gDjtpzA L2uxZmUrrZqX4hnV/waY3+v6nyQnO5RWMl0l6E/YUHB5uJhSwnk/d9+jQYCHv2uCf8kS RTBM3EqhdHh+7ZomPK/xg/OD2GwBeJCNL05S3Seci1w63mrsd7PU2j+HnneDQbAE6YOr WJnQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmWR11zvyZQlD6jSfXihXM4buTHk7cCq4ZQl0d0Y+rRp2YvJoy7V7khqiXB9gMKg3A2NOVR X-Received: by 10.58.134.110 with SMTP id pj14mr8605069veb.14.1382978875307; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:47:55 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.122.74 with SMTP id lq10ls1803732igb.36.canary; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:47:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.198.68 with SMTP id ja4mr22334852pbc.24.1382978875026; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:47:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pd0-f200.google.com (mail-pd0-f200.google.com [209.85.192.200]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gl1si13470669pac.256.2013.10.28.09.47.55 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:47:55 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBOVKXKJQKGQEBI6JAZQ@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-pd0-f200.google.com with SMTP id w10sf9562673pde.7 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:47:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.102.100 with SMTP id fn4mr653115pab.47.1382978874965; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:47:54 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.3.70 with SMTP id a6ls1932248iga.44.canary; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:47:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.194.97 with SMTP id hv1mr3554509pbc.162.1382978874693; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:47:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id pz2si13507049pac.86.2013.10.28.09.47.54 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:47:54 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8866911E814C; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:47:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0F9F11E814C for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:47:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6jMRjuxxAomf for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:47:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sobre.alvarezp.com (sobre.alvarezp.com [IPv6:2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fe96:8fec]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EEB121E80AB for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:47:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.251] (189.220.45.207.cable.dyn.cableonline.com.mx [189.220.45.207]) by sobre.alvarezp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8D9E8613D; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:47:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <526E9517.1090207@alvarezp.ods.org> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:47:19 -0700 From: Octavio Alvarez User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130821 Icedove/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeroen Massar Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526E250E.5050607@massar.ch> In-Reply-To: <526E250E.5050607@massar.ch> Cc: "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: alvarezp@alvarezp.ods.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBOVKXKJQKGQEBI6JAZQ@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBOVKXKJQKGQEBI6JAZQ@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-UID: 31 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 880 On 10/28/2013 01:49 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: > On 2013-10-27 15:50, Roger J=F8rgensen wrote: > [..] >> Privacy isn't just one single thing. That the user might lose privacy >> elsewhere in the entire stack that make up Internet, that's NOT an >> argument to give up /64 because we have lost privacy anyhow. > = > I am NOT arguing that a /64 should go the way of the dodo. > I am only stating that this "IPv6 Privacy Address" thing is a myth. Which is also inaccurate, as the purpose is not to provide privacy, but just to prevent anti-privacy through the IPv6 address. It's difficult to choose the right words for this. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBAFPXKJQKGQEJWJH5PA@cs.luc.edu Mon Oct 28 11:57:37 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-pd0-f198.google.com (mail-pd0-f198.google.com [209.85.192.198]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE08218F06 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 11:57:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-pd0-f198.google.com with SMTP id v10sf12792363pde.5 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:57:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=AuIto1TxqlwuCphkjTXUPyaesL8crxnobinYuFo1cJk=; b=MSTH93rXy/znOKN7sE/1keJkIYekbSNTzqYWhh2Yg4Yc19ZNfG92fbMsAyIJkoveyL OmL6KVYm1TQ2EjCFIH5Xdxl+MSG5/JVCfCuNnFrHtcVAXHuPIM+L6IxI72feSs+4BMmz c5V4yGeLUJmQmsiv2rrqpskkF9vlRpUHt+ygeYiioP9uXLcfVLlD2ZQB4KzKcVXmD5bg cWg8eSggK87sLyfaMq8wCuxmKJemdzUa8odsAV3cKndFYldczSt0HX94UMhP1gCbQdBI +iYQcmfi9IwqBIj5JGaOaeOGpSsVWXQu+9xp7dt5TFVe18q/Av1fOEwrdKcnXD8UCgOn 4/7w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkOEp63RfSMYe2AyJOXLlAtDEck7ftq27p2EkP7NL7OlSh5UX3b+ZEX9WoASQlkhuEFncGI X-Received: by 10.66.162.134 with SMTP id ya6mr9297729pab.7.1382979456763; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:57:36 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.182.221.231 with SMTP id qh7ls1171430obc.96.gmail; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:57:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.66.82 with SMTP id d18mr382204obt.98.1382979456619; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:57:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f200.google.com (mail-ob0-f200.google.com [209.85.214.200]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u6si9767696obi.67.2013.10.28.09.57.36 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:57:36 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBAFPXKJQKGQEKORPZSA@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-ob0-f200.google.com with SMTP id uy5sf14466494obc.7 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:57:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.42.37.143 with SMTP id y15mr8360284icd.26.1382979456227; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:57:36 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.138.229 with SMTP id qt5ls1785550igb.24.canary; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:57:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.177.71 with SMTP id co7mr2472564pac.181.1382979456039; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:57:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id je1si12534878pbb.270.2013.10.28.09.57.35 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:57:36 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6F3721E80DF; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:56:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7F3D21E80DF for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:56:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6bnxHRG8hxii for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:56:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sobre.alvarezp.com (sobre.alvarezp.com [173.230.155.94]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2242011E818D for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:56:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.251] (189.220.45.207.cable.dyn.cableonline.com.mx [189.220.45.207]) by sobre.alvarezp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D100613D; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:56:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <526E9735.8080708@alvarezp.ods.org> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:56:21 -0700 From: Octavio Alvarez User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130821 Icedove/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexandru Petrescu Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CF079.7030804@globis.net> <526E41BC.3080303@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <526E41BC.3080303@gmail.com> Cc: "" , Ray Hunter , Tim Chown , "Fred Baker \(fred\)" , Fernando Gont X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: alvarezp@alvarezp.ods.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBAFPXKJQKGQEKORPZSA@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBAFPXKJQKGQEKORPZSA@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 32 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 796 On 10/28/2013 03:51 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: >> Me? I believe in CIDR. > > The IPv4's CIDR concept (route based on bitwise borders, instead of > 8byte) seems to me a good clue for the discussion about the fix 64bit > limit in IPv6. CIDR is already being used. /80s, /96s and other arbitrary netmasks can be set on some devices and should work. Some of them may misbehave, though. But still, there is nothing to fix. The /64 limit is not a problem and will not be. Also, RFC 4941 (and some others) depend on /64 networks. Cheers. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCC77QGWVMIRBMFTXKJQKGQEDCS53SQ@cs.luc.edu Mon Oct 28 12:06:57 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-ie0-f197.google.com (mail-ie0-f197.google.com [209.85.223.197]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6C8317DFE for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:06:56 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f197.google.com with SMTP id e14sf21531816iej.0 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:06:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:organization :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc :precedence:list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=mkoTwDd9ijEaNUE0eksxIixaM26UZj4brXyZACoK4MQ=; b=lmstCzdcgrFCzwEYdBcrV8Z1Si1QWBVrKcqD+rUxQy5zFbn+yl9wi10+6EuTXhGwaZ YZC+jQrdabPZ952gfbUKIK2XAaAyDETDZVWEC+RpxHIYVOgh4N3s5cKFwRJNImD1rBeI zAp+dLEmPCLUMFf+vYor33j6Zfjo80izTU9NKXnFfpTLV1CcHrbP3MAsmLZDQ0JBNNtR /8KkOgoB7AiOUpU2uh/vMe6CM4wncJ+PIgG8KF8Ir0W7USo03yJ7+2BDcjytB72uSZzF +RJ6ASFOPiArNAhmJI89/s0Fp7Z4KqIB6V9udP7zvY9q970vaYyTpMPC3SWJhRCaVNb1 8aPg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlVHLKDluvVNQm++7UqlRTuzfwlVENoAjP1cXWLQR0Cla6abiW/QDvvcEPT+4jsHxMwKPIx X-Received: by 10.42.37.143 with SMTP id y15mr8375858icd.26.1382980016373; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:06:56 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.49.17.7 with SMTP id k7ls2046569qed.96.gmail; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:06:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.224.76.10 with SMTP id a10mr31776312qak.9.1382980016216; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:06:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-f197.google.com (mail-qc0-f197.google.com [209.85.216.197]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e20si10097847qey.22.2013.10.28.10.06.55 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:06:55 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBL5TXKJQKGQEN6A3EAA@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-qc0-f197.google.com with SMTP id x19sf17853891qcw.0 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:06:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.236.94.205 with SMTP id n53mr23635512yhf.44.1382980015895; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:06:55 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.22.99 with SMTP id c3ls1799306igf.7.canary; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:06:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.243.196 with SMTP id xa4mr2850439pac.174.1382980015681; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:06:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id dj3si12589996pbc.40.2013.10.28.10.06.54 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:06:55 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A11FA11E8260; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:06:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C35AD11E8286 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:06:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b5dOFedDtj2w for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:06:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from icaras.de.unfix.org (icaras.de.unfix.org [78.47.209.234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5CD211E8260 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:06:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from yomi.ch.unfix.org (84-73-144-213.dclient.hispeed.ch [84.73.144.213]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by icaras.de.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9C569801C2A2; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 18:06:01 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <526E995D.1000502@massar.ch> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 18:05:33 +0100 From: Jeroen Massar Organization: Massar Networking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Octavio Alvarez Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526E250E.5050607@massar.ch> <526E9517.1090207@alvarezp.ods.org> In-Reply-To: <526E9517.1090207@alvarezp.ods.org> Cc: "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pld@math.luc.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBL5TXKJQKGQEN6A3EAA@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBAABBL5TXKJQKGQEN6A3EAA@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-UID: 33 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 1664 On 2013-10-28 17:47 , Octavio Alvarez wrote: > On 10/28/2013 01:49 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: >> On 2013-10-27 15:50, Roger J=F8rgensen wrote: >> [..] >>> Privacy isn't just one single thing. That the user might lose privacy >>> elsewhere in the entire stack that make up Internet, that's NOT an >>> argument to give up /64 because we have lost privacy anyhow. >> >> I am NOT arguing that a /64 should go the way of the dodo. >> I am only stating that this "IPv6 Privacy Address" thing is a myth. > = > Which is also inaccurate, as the purpose is not to provide privacy, but > just to prevent anti-privacy through the IPv6 address. Please explain this "anti-privacy" concept. > It's difficult to choose the right words for this. You mean that it is difficult to justify randomizing bits as it does not solve the problem at hand: you can and will be tracked. >From the intro of RFC4941: ---- Changing the interface identifier (and the global scope addresses generated from it) over time makes it more difficult for eavesdroppers and other information collectors to identify when different addresses used in different transactions actually correspond to the same node." ---- As it states 'more difficult'. Since 2001 (RFC3041 which has the same wording and intent) this kind of tracking tech and the compute power has advanced enough though that the difficulty is futile. Greets, Jeroen -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld@cs.luc.edu Mon Oct 28 12:14:40 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from lukasiewicz.cs.luc.edu (lukasiewicz.cs.luc.edu [147.126.65.57]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CB5A17DFE for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:14:40 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [10.0.0.5] (ulam2 [147.126.65.47]) by lukasiewicz.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPA id EDF956A237; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:14:39 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <526E9B7F.3020004@cs.luc.edu> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:14:39 -0500 From: Peter Dordal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeroen Massar CC: "" , Peter Dordal Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526E250E.5050607@massar.ch> <526E267E.2070705@massar.ch> <526E2A56.7070503@massar.ch> <526E2E0C.904@massar.ch> In-Reply-To: <526E2E0C.904@massar.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 34 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 1513 On 10/28/2013 04:27 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: > See my other messages: IPv6 Privacy addresses are a myth, they do not > work. You can track people even when you just see IP addresses and > ignore the upper layers. The upper layers just make it easier. > > Greets, > Jeroen > > In what sense exactly is this claim meant?I agree that "privacy" addresses are in many scenarios not all that private, but I am not sure that makes them useless. 1. Suppose I connect both at work and home; each site has a different /64 prefix. I do not want anyone to correlate my work and home traffic. Assume I am either not using http, or I erase cookies frequently; higher layers are not exposing me in any "obvious" way. If I use SLAAC at both sites, using the same EUI-64 identifier as my low-order bits, then this gives me away. How else can I avoid this besides using privacy addresses? 2. Suppose I connect to two different remote sites, A and B, while at work. I don't want someone reviewing the logs at A and B to know the same host made both these connections. There are thousands of others at my same workplace using the same /64 prefix; an outside observer will not be able to infer that the same person connected to A and B from the prefix alone. I want to choose different IPv6 addresses at my end for each of these connections, differing of course only in the low-order bits. Again I use SLAAC. How do I create the second IPv6 address except by using privacy addresses? Peter Dordal Loyola University Chicago From pld+bncBDEKZ56NYUMRBZGFXKJQKGQEUFEEWGA@cs.luc.edu Mon Oct 28 12:46:12 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-vc0-f197.google.com (mail-vc0-f197.google.com [209.85.220.197]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C42FC18F9D for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:46:12 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f197.google.com with SMTP id ld13sf6985447vcb.4 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:46:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:date:message-id:to:subject:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:cc:precedence:list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe :sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=StZCcskHlxqK0Tn6S7o5yvazPbbkn0LgEP78SKx1uak=; b=AIb8f0eevP9YMasCKXK+VRBHugSUfMzw0M3jakJyqHSGURWcMlyMw7IrZ8pcIcCotR FVH6g5osMx0ohWnegHkR2CR+0J1QIGHqzTe393uCiTADDj0qLK9IArSpOC0fOdt10//Y R0psQp80nr9/graYVeP0F/4c9Z6pXPkRS83VhyQWVPheqBnkzn6f7enBRNonSSCTKAO9 8M+FAdDR+o/8s2wvtXc84wwTKwMdQoS+6QCmcQDmIb9+4rF0SnL7nULlTdbBmYM1N1yx /3EF8AHlbJVsqeC65mGYcObETLVwL9zmeoD132TTQKtSDwV6n1Vm5KpgsSrrxLOJnORS mpEw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk7wLo/o2mMWAT448LOzDPi3IQ5wsGBafPbJx1y3xZqoHVlxuTm4V738gMhsEOTtKog1cEU X-Received: by 10.58.18.204 with SMTP id y12mr2631140ved.36.1382982372311; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:46:12 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.43.164 with SMTP id x4ls1762934igl.13.canary; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:46:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.99.99 with SMTP id ep3mr17348856pbb.107.1382982372124; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:46:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f71.google.com (mail-pb0-f71.google.com [209.85.160.71]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id sg3si12671251pbb.103.2013.10.28.10.46.11 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:46:11 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDEKZ56NYUMRBY6FXKJQKGQEHW2VJ5I@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-pb0-f71.google.com with SMTP id uo5sf8793076pbc.10 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:46:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.141.46 with SMTP id rl14mr1206925pab.44.1382982371773; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:46:11 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.1.104 with SMTP id 8ls1718363igl.31.gmail; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:46:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.255.229 with SMTP id at5mr17293989pbd.130.1382982371486; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:46:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id jp3si12688690pbc.6.2013.10.28.10.46.11 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:46:11 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0361B11E8191; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:46:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A019211E819B for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:46:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RW7Q9g9AjgMi for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:46:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [195.1.209.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0F0AC11E828B for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:45:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 89628 invoked from network); 28 Oct 2013 17:45:53 -0000 Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (HELO localhost) (195.1.209.33) by bizet.nethelp.no with SMTP; 28 Oct 2013 17:45:53 -0000 Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 18:45:53 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <20131028.184553.78794962.sthaug@nethelp.no> To: alvarezp@alvarezp.ods.org Subject: Re: Why /64 From: sthaug@nethelp.no In-Reply-To: <526E9735.8080708@alvarezp.ods.org> References: <526CF079.7030804@globis.net> <526E41BC.3080303@gmail.com> <526E9735.8080708@alvarezp.ods.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com, ipv6@ietf.org, v6ops@globis.net, tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk, fred@cisco.com, fgont@si6networks.com X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: sthaug@nethelp.no X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDEKZ56NYUMRBY6FXKJQKGQEHW2VJ5I@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBDEKZ56NYUMRBY6FXKJQKGQEHW2VJ5I@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 35 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 937 > > The IPv4's CIDR concept (route based on bitwise borders, instead of > > 8byte) seems to me a good clue for the discussion about the fix 64bit > > limit in IPv6. > > CIDR is already being used. /80s, /96s and other arbitrary netmasks can > be set on some devices and should work. Some of them may misbehave, though. "Some devices"? They work on all devices I've tried. And I certainly *expect* normal longest prefix match based forwarding to work, with no arbitrary /64 limitation. The only limitations I've seen are IPv6 ACLs on some Cisco switches, where the 144 bit wide CAM cannot accomodate a 128 bit IPv6 address *and* 2 x 16 bit port numbers. Steinar Haug, AS 2116 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBWP3XKJQKGQEHTP7QBA@cs.luc.edu Mon Oct 28 14:41:14 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-yh0-f72.google.com (mail-yh0-f72.google.com [209.85.213.72]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D0D517BA2 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 14:41:13 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-yh0-f72.google.com with SMTP id z20sf20502135yhz.7 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:41:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-transfer-encoding :content-type; bh=ywqmr53nF9NdOlzrecSBnDP0pPMFDpe2Ih0buACXmJg=; b=JY8hlkyy5nn54oCx1waAqEjnN+/ijpJV7UUZoqwiV46mB73xuaIuwVQlgzpnxh1sO3 YJi+skMFldWjgBGRKJ/tmzZPQMJzhzVCs34l2RY0H5QT/1hmGQWJ/Alqv5rLlMxCf56T XLbkY/RR8bBq3QXVgwbmQFWncppEeZc9Wffcu+o1IX3Tf/+whilFJ0tJRwmSgdrLDBqv LtAjyjTeTWm6qVFfIWa+SwQWf0iPwKMaAHOm93BBXXgITfMoKhJodWJytynbaXRVYQA5 opsoEhplP/K8UtVXz1rQrFzsuf4MoPE5PXJBMqDUCVriicitF3mDnem31vr7uqxMhUVu MXbg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmFfPaaGX5fHLMBWmbx6rWaDSX+pdkazCPoqKsD7AEiV0D7MC3dfqdkRS78eHC6fHnAv6rM X-Received: by 10.59.5.7 with SMTP id ci7mr8656392ved.11.1382989273154; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:41:13 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.61.162 with SMTP id q2ls1938256igr.41.canary; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:41:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.163.2 with SMTP id ye2mr3552887pab.170.1382989272830; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:41:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-f69.google.com (mail-pa0-f69.google.com [209.85.220.69]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ws5si13836899pab.180.2013.10.28.12.41.12 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:41:12 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBWH3XKJQKGQEDYJ7MUQ@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-pa0-f69.google.com with SMTP id kx10sf8991238pab.8 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:41:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.144.133 with SMTP id sm5mr9277925pab.5.1382989272733; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:41:12 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.62.33 with SMTP id v1ls1857512igr.4.canary; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:41:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.158.196 with SMTP id ww4mr27527435pab.57.1382989272464; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:41:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id l8si12899669pbi.61.2013.10.28.12.41.12 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:41:12 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B086521F8531; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:41:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2295621F95D0 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:41:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 57UVurxrQYzq for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:41:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sobre.alvarezp.com (sobre.alvarezp.com [IPv6:2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fe96:8fec]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5456C21F93B9 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:41:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.8.4.35] (unknown [201.139.192.242]) by sobre.alvarezp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5D81D613D; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:41:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <526EBDD0.4050600@alvarezp.ods.org> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:41:04 -0700 From: Octavio Alvarez User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130803 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeroen Massar Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526E250E.5050607@massar.ch> <526E9517.1090207@alvarezp.ods.org> <526E995D.1000502@massar.ch> In-Reply-To: <526E995D.1000502@massar.ch> Cc: "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: alvarezp@alvarezp.ods.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBWH3XKJQKGQEDYJ7MUQ@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBWH3XKJQKGQEDYJ7MUQ@math.luc.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed" X-UID: 36 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 2609 On 28/10/13 10:05, Jeroen Massar wrote: > On 2013-10-28 17:47 , Octavio Alvarez wrote: >> On 10/28/2013 01:49 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: >>> On 2013-10-27 15:50, Roger J=F8rgensen wrote: >>> [..] >>>> Privacy isn't just one single thing. That the user might lose privacy >>>> elsewhere in the entire stack that make up Internet, that's NOT an >>>> argument to give up /64 because we have lost privacy anyhow. >>> >>> I am NOT arguing that a /64 should go the way of the dodo. >>> I am only stating that this "IPv6 Privacy Address" thing is a myth. >> >> Which is also inaccurate, as the purpose is not to provide privacy, but >> just to prevent anti-privacy through the IPv6 address. > > Please explain this "anti-privacy" concept. Made up word, as in "explicitly not privacy". It's not the same "this = address will not make it as easy for a tracker to track me at least in = some applications but it is possible if you try hard enough and it will = cost some more resources to the tracker" than "here you go, it's me and = you even know what brand of NIC I'm using". Also, Web !=3D Internet. >> It's difficult to choose the right words for this. > > You mean that it is difficult to justify randomizing bits as it does not > solve the problem at hand: you can and will be tracked. > > From the intro of RFC4941: > ---- > Changing the interface > identifier (and the global scope addresses generated from it) over > time makes it more difficult for eavesdroppers and other information > collectors to identify when different addresses used in different > transactions actually correspond to the same node." > ---- > > As it states 'more difficult'. Since 2001 (RFC3041 which has the same > wording and intent) this kind of tracking tech and the compute power has > advanced enough though that the difficulty is futile. Under that logic, punching a hole on my house roof with a drill is just = more difficult than opening a door, and given a drill is easy to buy and = not so expensive for people that want, let's all leave our doors = unlocked and open. I *also think*, however, that changing address without restarting all = connections just nullifies the effect of any changing-address privacy = extension. I'm not a pro-removing-EUI-64-device-IDs, I'm just saying that = randomizing bits does something helpful. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBAABBRMGX2JQKGQEYRMFCAA@cs.luc.edu Tue Oct 29 04:43:35 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-wg0-f71.google.com (mail-wg0-f71.google.com [74.125.82.71]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 972BB18EBC for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 04:43:35 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-wg0-f71.google.com with SMTP id b13sf9820427wgh.2 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 02:43:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent :mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=uLRyqvZ1zqIBRslgqKTFRlNkxt3jMdhXjGKlGnjI1LI=; b=C7gTGjdBrGKySycaGq0wfbNGM4cP033X6V3rmLZ8bjEJLcwniAvLU3Kgv7zkbtSf9Y tkO76rcMQci7z4HcPCjvKAEbUoCf+myi0Hbt3CHLGHBqqGzHnbtfolJqf09rgYLPiAOd tluei3GL60MzF84j/uP/1gVieVizTbsL+Mk9soExC7XTsD7pVHYlwkU6rt6wfNR8iA0f 3k4EA3yLYwMGZcqaPERUDvRK2l7XaKZgZ7+WiCX8iKnYYgOwfsLr/di1kmYFn15oBDIG 8Ttlm7q+rEUcvHB1jSpb9yD8nDaIraJIB1ZS32UPSLPAiie5aSS71MWL0TSGsXvFDa+m JYPQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlzOsv6Ox7gBvqMRGXS/VtyMGKrodzEwF3679S9ncAI4hgH2Kh5odIpgmSsdJKo8SysOPIw X-Received: by 10.112.126.10 with SMTP id mu10mr7797460lbb.5.1383039813901; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 02:43:33 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.180.93.101 with SMTP id ct5ls601135wib.24.canary; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 02:43:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.14.203.70 with SMTP id e46mr26695289eeo.33.1383039813648; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 02:43:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from icaras.de.unfix.org (icaras.de.unfix.org. [78.47.209.234]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z46si18025394eep.121.2013.10.29.02.43.32 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 29 Oct 2013 02:43:32 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 78.47.209.234 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of jeroen@massar.ch) client-ip=78.47.209.234; Received: from yomi.ch.unfix.org (84-73-144-213.dclient.hispeed.ch [84.73.144.213]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by icaras.de.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 151E0801C2A2; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:43:24 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <526F831C.5080408@massar.ch> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:42:52 +0100 From: Jeroen Massar Organization: Massar Networking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Dordal CC: "" Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526E250E.5050607@massar.ch> <526E267E.2070705@massar.ch> <526E2A56.7070503@massar.ch> <526E2E0C.904@massar.ch> <526E9B7F.3020004@cs.luc.edu> In-Reply-To: <526E9B7F.3020004@cs.luc.edu> X-Original-Sender: jeroen@massar.ch X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 78.47.209.234 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of jeroen@massar.ch) smtp.mail=jeroen@massar.ch Precedence: list Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 37 Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: Content-Length: 4202 On 2013-10-28 18:14 , Peter Dordal wrote: > On 10/28/2013 04:27 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: >> See my other messages: IPv6 Privacy addresses are a myth, they do not >> work. You can track people even when you just see IP addresses and >> ignore the upper layers. The upper layers just make it easier. >> >> Greets, >> Jeroen >> >> > In what sense exactly is this claim meant?I agree that "privacy" > addresses are in many scenarios not all that private, > but I am not sure that makes them useless. > > 1. Suppose I connect both at work and home; each site has > a different /64 prefix. I do not want anyone to correlate my work > and home traffic. For different sites, not using the MAC-derived EUI-64 is indeed a great thing. But you could just as well use DHCPv6 or just pick random number like ::5 and use that insted. The actual IPv6 Privacy address, including the randomization and expiration does not add much there in avoiding tracking. Note that a lot of folks have IM clients (using specific jabber servicers), mail clients (using specific smtp/imap/pop3 servers) configured. Thus if there are only a few users on the destination server, it is easy enough to designate all that randomly picked source still as the same person based on that. (If you want to hide on the IP level, use mixnet...) > Assume I am either not using http, or I erase > cookies frequently; higher layers are not exposing me in any > "obvious" way. Actually, erasing your cookies makes you obvious as there are very few people who do not have cookies as you get them all the time. Hence why some people where 'exchanging' cookies at one point (can't seem to quickly find the site that had the plugins etc to do so). But seems Christian wrote a article about that earlier this year: http://huitema.wordpress.com/2013/03/17/lets-build-a-cookie-exchange/ > If I use SLAAC at both sites, using the same EUI-64 identifier > as my low-order bits, then this gives me away. Definitely. And that can be considered a good thing (logging, ACLs) and a bad thing: makes tracking really easy. > How else can I avoid this besides using privacy addresses? As above, configure something like ::2 or use other such numbers. > 2. Suppose I connect to two different remote sites, A and B, > while at work. I don't want someone reviewing the logs at A and B > to know the same host made both these connections. > > There are thousands of others at my same workplace using the > same /64 prefix; an outside observer will not be able to infer > that the same person connected to A and B from the prefix alone. But they can make a pretty good guess. There will be a lot of meta data in those connections, much of it that will make you unique. Try this for the fun of it: - keep your cookies that you have - google for something common "how do you..." and see how autocomplete answers (that is, if you still have that enabled). or if you do not (smart! but also makes you unique again) just hit the search button and see which answers you get now clear those cookies and change that IPv6 address of yours to something else random and try again. Gee, you say, same results!? Now ask a colleague to repeat the same thing on a different host and he/she will be getting different results. Gee, why? There is more meta information than that... And HTTP is not the only way to detect things, every protocol has meta data. It just depends on how much the adversary wants to know who you are and how much they can collect. > I want to choose different IPv6 addresses at my end > for each of these connections, differing of course only in the > low-order bits. Again I use SLAAC. How do I create > the second IPv6 address except by using privacy addresses? The privacy extensions are not per-application and neither per-connection. They are time-based instead and thus if you make connections during a certain bucket of time they all are coming at the same time. They would be much better already if they did do per-app, per-connect. But still you would just be thrown into a bit-bucket of 'that /64 contains users X Y Z" and thus based on other properties than IP you would still be seen as identity X. Greets, Jeroen From pld+bncBCC77QGWVMIRBSMGX2JQKGQEBMNOZOI@cs.luc.edu Tue Oct 29 04:43:39 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-pd0-f198.google.com (mail-pd0-f198.google.com [209.85.192.198]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3C3B18F06 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 04:43:38 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-pd0-f198.google.com with SMTP id v10sf14481654pde.9 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 02:43:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:organization :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc :precedence:list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=yzUuODG8UwjUp+gTukYDO+cDqdK4PGdJsriuPhTAzAQ=; b=OHAZmS/uJcDMfE+zp3Rt26dqmVzU40DT17UeMBIjqhVNQ1qstdvAxqtDl6kp92n2jE Qy94Fn5V+Ozprd7nZbcmuWI2AyXMuPwmxVSFGL3tP6kf+Z3jQVVLFmKcQMbVwOK5DUsv 6DdszuBrjAOysDlepF/CeL20tu3U15b2dXdecL8t6PLhwQ5Dvv6omYvFGV2R4+wkIaqs 0PaNv1sL9EaG89dfPJb/2Rd5POpO+TdTkIiDVzJIn89cEb16YG3wWp8HAtxJBdXKPoNM jpL5cRT4XiC0dXmsV1elSppjMiZdbICwz2ngRbQnJiEek2ZugwuZ6GAGui34gJN5Grer 1LiQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlepRQvMNMn8tL4sTCFks7wqIjJ7sOQjTYtFMP7ItrBHia+0/3maxfFVmd+Gbgo5p+bl+F+ X-Received: by 10.66.250.233 with SMTP id zf9mr10540812pac.12.1383039817858; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 02:43:37 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.112.135 with SMTP id iq7ls10472igb.34.gmail; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 02:43:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.161.138 with SMTP id xs10mr30460032pab.56.1383039817623; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 02:43:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pd0-f199.google.com (mail-pd0-f199.google.com [209.85.192.199]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hj4si15393077pac.10.2013.10.29.02.43.37 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 29 Oct 2013 02:43:37 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBSMGX2JQKGQEANKEE7A@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-pd0-f199.google.com with SMTP id y10sf14488843pdj.6 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 02:43:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.226.71 with SMTP id rq7mr7966509pbc.5.1383039817338; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 02:43:37 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.118.97 with SMTP id kl1ls2154313igb.35.canary; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 02:43:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.163.5 with SMTP id ye5mr143951pbb.202.1383039817054; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 02:43:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id jp3si14390202pbc.336.2013.10.29.02.43.36 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 02:43:36 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9563C11E8106; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 02:43:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC52911E81BC for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 02:43:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m7ePDRAE3KYL for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 02:43:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from icaras.de.unfix.org (icaras.de.unfix.org [IPv6:2a01:4f8:130:74c1:5054:ff:fec4:f7d4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FB8711E81F0 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 02:43:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from yomi.ch.unfix.org (84-73-144-213.dclient.hispeed.ch [84.73.144.213]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by icaras.de.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 151E0801C2A2; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:43:24 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <526F831C.5080408@massar.ch> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:42:52 +0100 From: Jeroen Massar Organization: Massar Networking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Dordal Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526E250E.5050607@massar.ch> <526E267E.2070705@massar.ch> <526E2A56.7070503@massar.ch> <526E2E0C.904@massar.ch> <526E9B7F.3020004@cs.luc.e du> In-Reply-To: <526E9B7F.3020004@cs.luc.edu> Cc: "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pld@math.luc.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBSMGX2JQKGQEANKEE7A@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBAABBSMGX2JQKGQEANKEE7A@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 38 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 4460 On 2013-10-28 18:14 , Peter Dordal wrote: > On 10/28/2013 04:27 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: >> See my other messages: IPv6 Privacy addresses are a myth, they do not >> work. You can track people even when you just see IP addresses and >> ignore the upper layers. The upper layers just make it easier. >> >> Greets, >> Jeroen >> >> > In what sense exactly is this claim meant?I agree that "privacy" > addresses are in many scenarios not all that private, > but I am not sure that makes them useless. > > 1. Suppose I connect both at work and home; each site has > a different /64 prefix. I do not want anyone to correlate my work > and home traffic. For different sites, not using the MAC-derived EUI-64 is indeed a great thing. But you could just as well use DHCPv6 or just pick random number like ::5 and use that insted. The actual IPv6 Privacy address, including the randomization and expiration does not add much there in avoiding tracking. Note that a lot of folks have IM clients (using specific jabber servicers), mail clients (using specific smtp/imap/pop3 servers) configured. Thus if there are only a few users on the destination server, it is easy enough to designate all that randomly picked source still as the same person based on that. (If you want to hide on the IP level, use mixnet...) > Assume I am either not using http, or I erase > cookies frequently; higher layers are not exposing me in any > "obvious" way. Actually, erasing your cookies makes you obvious as there are very few people who do not have cookies as you get them all the time. Hence why some people where 'exchanging' cookies at one point (can't seem to quickly find the site that had the plugins etc to do so). But seems Christian wrote a article about that earlier this year: http://huitema.wordpress.com/2013/03/17/lets-build-a-cookie-exchange/ > If I use SLAAC at both sites, using the same EUI-64 identifier > as my low-order bits, then this gives me away. Definitely. And that can be considered a good thing (logging, ACLs) and a bad thing: makes tracking really easy. > How else can I avoid this besides using privacy addresses? As above, configure something like ::2 or use other such numbers. > 2. Suppose I connect to two different remote sites, A and B, > while at work. I don't want someone reviewing the logs at A and B > to know the same host made both these connections. > > There are thousands of others at my same workplace using the > same /64 prefix; an outside observer will not be able to infer > that the same person connected to A and B from the prefix alone. But they can make a pretty good guess. There will be a lot of meta data in those connections, much of it that will make you unique. Try this for the fun of it: - keep your cookies that you have - google for something common "how do you..." and see how autocomplete answers (that is, if you still have that enabled). or if you do not (smart! but also makes you unique again) just hit the search button and see which answers you get now clear those cookies and change that IPv6 address of yours to something else random and try again. Gee, you say, same results!? Now ask a colleague to repeat the same thing on a different host and he/she will be getting different results. Gee, why? There is more meta information than that... And HTTP is not the only way to detect things, every protocol has meta data. It just depends on how much the adversary wants to know who you are and how much they can collect. > I want to choose different IPv6 addresses at my end > for each of these connections, differing of course only in the > low-order bits. Again I use SLAAC. How do I create > the second IPv6 address except by using privacy addresses? The privacy extensions are not per-application and neither per-connection. They are time-based instead and thus if you make connections during a certain bucket of time they all are coming at the same time. They would be much better already if they did do per-app, per-connect. But still you would just be thrown into a bit-bucket of 'that /64 contains users X Y Z" and thus based on other properties than IP you would still be seen as identity X. Greets, Jeroen -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBC6JRKUP6MDBB5FOX2JQKGQEDB3YB3A@cs.luc.edu Tue Oct 29 06:09:41 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-ve0-f198.google.com (mail-ve0-f198.google.com [209.85.128.198]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DB8B18EBC for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 06:09:41 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-ve0-f198.google.com with SMTP id c14sf16791344vea.9 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 04:09:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-transfer-encoding :content-type; bh=86ajAnq83hxHywODNdXrmGo+9WiaHa2EIkh31y7Ef10=; b=ZLEK99G1bnmKiu5Lgdnce3pjpxl7jx1OPJn69bszRIC8ebvCsrISJxqDaPykRT3g3q 4yoiZ5fN+0raceifnlmWAUJixysr7IkceYo2ZtoGA0Bhww0opR7Io4VSFD9q20m1OgqQ Q8mP/G9RBaSG4XuIxLsX1qlLTykt4NfPk6DGBrf36YCpz2MpFOS+KmRzM0Y257An0ZZb zaCr+4Xq4uTOACa02sdMSBfOCpqS4edEzia8CRyb6bbMLqZCa+EN7pOg/EHJYFmxzgf+ a563eHKS6Dxg5IWSsTX1up7lSwv3sgLn2elp3I5dKhwb+esH+aczqbH9C7OY9t34NpSM bgBg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkJObfAgCl73bcZMTmyeZO8FpAeqpO5DpmmQRZ2ZsNcROQDWMFKMrwqCIt9xk03TKRatqo1 X-Received: by 10.236.163.67 with SMTP id z43mr26629159yhk.27.1383044980924; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 04:09:40 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.49.128.138 with SMTP id no10ls21989qeb.18.gmail; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 04:09:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.101.8 with SMTP id fc8mr34782268qeb.31.1383044980764; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 04:09:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-f197.google.com (mail-qc0-f197.google.com [209.85.216.197]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b6si12298246qak.54.2013.10.29.04.09.40 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 29 Oct 2013 04:09:40 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBC6JRKUP6MDBB5FOX2JQKGQEZPPNOQA@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-qc0-f197.google.com with SMTP id x19sf20184948qcw.4 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 04:09:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.58.230.5 with SMTP id su5mr5359093vec.23.1383044980355; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 04:09:40 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.43.133 with SMTP id w5ls2318229igl.19.canary; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 04:09:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.157.165 with SMTP id wn5mr922743pab.169.1383044980136; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 04:09:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id gl1si15569911pac.140.2013.10.29.04.09.39 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 04:09:39 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A52521F8FF8; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 04:09:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 356F711E8292 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:14:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3a3tDN3AJZGo for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:14:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lukasiewicz.cs.luc.edu (lukasiewicz.cs.luc.edu [147.126.65.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48A0311E8282 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:14:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.0.5] (ulam2 [147.126.65.47]) by lukasiewicz.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPA id EDF956A237; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:14:39 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <526E9B7F.3020004@cs.luc.edu> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:14:39 -0500 From: Peter Dordal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeroen Massar Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526E250E.5050607@massar.ch> <526E267E.2070705@massar.ch> <526E2A56.7070503@massar.ch> <526E2E0C.904@massar.ch> In-Reply-To: <526E2E0C.904@massar.ch> X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 04:09:38 -0700 Cc: Peter Dordal , "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pld@cs.luc.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBC6JRKUP6MDBB5FOX2JQKGQEZPPNOQA@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBC6JRKUP6MDBB5FOX2JQKGQEZPPNOQA@math.luc.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" X-UID: 39 Status: RO X-Keywords: NonJunk Content-Length: 1770 On 10/28/2013 04:27 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: > See my other messages: IPv6 Privacy addresses are a myth, they do not > work. You can track people even when you just see IP addresses and > ignore the upper layers. The upper layers just make it easier. > > Greets, > Jeroen > > In what sense exactly is this claim meant?I agree that "privacy" addresses are in many scenarios not all that private, but I am not sure that makes them useless. 1. Suppose I connect both at work and home; each site has a different /64 prefix. I do not want anyone to correlate my work and home traffic. Assume I am either not using http, or I erase cookies frequently; higher layers are not exposing me in any "obvious" way. If I use SLAAC at both sites, using the same EUI-64 identifier as my low-order bits, then this gives me away. How else can I avoid this besides using privacy addresses? 2. Suppose I connect to two different remote sites, A and B, while at work. I don't want someone reviewing the logs at A and B to know the same host made both these connections. There are thousands of others at my same workplace using the same /64 prefix; an outside observer will not be able to infer that the same person connected to A and B from the prefix alone. I want to choose different IPv6 addresses at my end for each of these connections, differing of course only in the low-order bits. Again I use SLAAC. How do I create the second IPv6 address except by using privacy addresses? Peter Dordal Loyola University Chicago -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBFHCX6JQKGQESVTKSDI@cs.luc.edu Tue Oct 29 12:32:05 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-vb0-f70.google.com (mail-vb0-f70.google.com [209.85.212.70]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E571F17DC9 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:32:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f70.google.com with SMTP id m10sf314692vbh.5 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:32:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=585D/mG++D7QF91FZoWDRDcZykWt41CLpWAVH7yS2lk=; b=Pu4IAjnWIDYtzPS7igz/9OGzAL/uOc1sCfKvXfurbMHYsNoplouOUy5WKCuVumaujK DveDdemBW4uMeHghbANmDuryfontzL/+DhVxBqqiuMAT3ALw/a0ZtiRbyz1sFQonRHjG 3Q9On3SrqhoweVPgsY7r9y5F+JQrN5o6R61myB1ymqc9BXM/8alu0jkKlMKJc1cWcNRy 6h+glNqZQLCwG+TZnHzVn9Hdvv/rAZJWqxgn+O+uX83UTtE7Icvd4I9WHX0+U8iOFEtV RejB5dyVjI0ILnDHpnU2ZIN1qkHadtlmk7XvFPpapMlPhS50jmkn2weZgoPb0bPNtSLZ UWFg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl7bTB1oByTSAZ0tKFy/GLCAhRGFrOc4aUWnXXabVa68tu2hzstGR2VdAoqN4OEgle1x+oQ X-Received: by 10.58.230.5 with SMTP id su5mr268066vec.23.1383067924545; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:32:04 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.128.130 with SMTP id no2ls2302333igb.30.canary; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:32:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.189.163 with SMTP id gj3mr756509pbc.102.1383067924293; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:32:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sobre.alvarezp.com (sobre.alvarezp.com. [173.230.155.94]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id mj9si16397121pab.306.2013.10.29.10.32.03 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:32:03 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of alvarezp@alvarezp.ods.org designates 173.230.155.94 as permitted sender) client-ip=173.230.155.94; Received: from [192.168.2.251] (189.220.45.207.cable.dyn.cableonline.com.mx [189.220.45.207]) by sobre.alvarezp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EB133613D; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:32:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <526FF124.2030809@alvarezp.ods.org> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:32:20 -0700 From: Octavio Alvarez User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130821 Icedove/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeroen Massar CC: Peter Dordal , "" Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526E250E.5050607@massar.ch> <526E267E.2070705@massar.ch> <526E2A56.7070503@massar.ch> <526E2E0C.904@massar.ch> <526E9B7F.3020004@cs.luc.e du> <526F831C.5080408@massar.ch> In-Reply-To: <526F831C.5080408@massar.ch> X-Original-Sender: alvarezp@alvarezp.ods.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of alvarezp@alvarezp.ods.org designates 173.230.155.94 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=alvarezp@alvarezp.ods.org Precedence: list Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 40 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 1181 On 10/29/2013 02:42 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: > Try this for the fun of it: > - keep your cookies that you have > - google for something common "how do you..." > and see how autocomplete answers (that is, if you still have that > enabled). or if you do not (smart! but also makes you unique again) > just hit the search button and see which answers you get > > now clear those cookies and change that IPv6 address of yours to > something else random and try again. Gee, you say, same results!? That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Whatever changes are done in IPv6 can not protect a user if the user likes using an application designed to track him. The "problem" may not lie on the application itself, but it certainly doesn't lie on IPv6 either (read: HTTP cokies...) Writing a higher-layer protocol or application that tracks you is not the fault of IPv6. It's like blaming Ethernet for allowing a site in Australia to reach Europe given Ethernet was only designed for local area networks. The issue at hand is: what does IPv6 directly does to leak information about the local machine? Is this a problem? If it is (at all) is it possible to fix and how? From pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBOXDX6JQKGQE6BORV4A@cs.luc.edu Tue Oct 29 12:34:50 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-oa0-f69.google.com (mail-oa0-f69.google.com [209.85.219.69]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD26F17DC9 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:34:50 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-oa0-f69.google.com with SMTP id n12sf535195oag.4 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:34:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=s4fuuG4VfY6cnugCCkoF84TWO6xrkOdflliPLHo9Em8=; b=nCnm6nSG49JzBRfdNPbIwSHBplyk7jpb6vo1TdDmzO3xfYsHK4xu8ZzfU4bhk03H0n +MVCHr6T4uXHgwk5NZMSLAGIni7UHPYmcJKKCnB43zff8I7TcspZZy0q2D1nireyUkh/ 0+izPpzlEFelGiV546ifc2VNdNfaSSPIMN7RFOmlCtxRZxZbPvYLORpgAS0GPgTkVIH7 LCwuDEbtOFouPQAgp2gQ/F14XYBph9uYaK/u83oxaEibT6YBU+atgS2s0CIpGTb7v94j mfW+TXgZZl0JlOzDvZi6o4/HDfiHFMsnt1x51q0CazTMilA2Eby4iOmMQI/xUFXfP98s ATbQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm/ozU1sW4IJW6+rbH5/WONCdx4mn4WtBu5kmbsPpI8BjM83FHGkP5Ep1Ekv/Z2p0hRX3fR X-Received: by 10.182.158.4 with SMTP id wq4mr341987obb.18.1383068090236; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:34:50 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.182.81.39 with SMTP id w7ls125649obx.55.gmail; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:34:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.60.70.134 with SMTP id m6mr586642oeu.14.1383068090099; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:34:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-f71.google.com (mail-oa0-f71.google.com [209.85.219.71]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id qc5si12926568oeb.45.2013.10.29.10.34.49 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:34:49 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBOHDX6JQKGQE7GYRLHQ@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-oa0-f71.google.com with SMTP id j6sf530960oag.10 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:34:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.42.131.129 with SMTP id z1mr261958ics.25.1383068088923; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:34:48 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.128.130 with SMTP id no2ls2305626igb.30.canary; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:34:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.161.229 with SMTP id xv5mr1488100pab.87.1383068088689; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:34:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id gv2si15460043pbb.251.2013.10.29.10.34.48 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:34:48 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF5FC21F9DB0; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:34:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D09D21F9D8D for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:34:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id laBrn2ZgHmm6 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:34:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sobre.alvarezp.com (sobre.alvarezp.com [IPv6:2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fe96:8fec]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49E0221F9BD5 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:32:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.251] (189.220.45.207.cable.dyn.cableonline.com.mx [189.220.45.207]) by sobre.alvarezp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EB133613D; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:32:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <526FF124.2030809@alvarezp.ods.org> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:32:20 -0700 From: Octavio Alvarez User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130821 Icedove/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeroen Massar Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526E250E.5050607@massar.ch> <526E267E.2070705@massar.ch> <526E2A56.7070503@massar.ch> <526E2E0C.904@massar.ch> <526E9B7F.3020004@cs.luc.e du> <526F831C.5080408@massar.ch> In-Reply-To: <526F831C.5080408@massar.ch> Cc: Peter Dordal , "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: alvarezp@alvarezp.ods.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBOHDX6JQKGQE7GYRLHQ@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBOHDX6JQKGQE7GYRLHQ@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 41 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 1439 On 10/29/2013 02:42 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: > Try this for the fun of it: > - keep your cookies that you have > - google for something common "how do you..." > and see how autocomplete answers (that is, if you still have that > enabled). or if you do not (smart! but also makes you unique again) > just hit the search button and see which answers you get > > now clear those cookies and change that IPv6 address of yours to > something else random and try again. Gee, you say, same results!? That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Whatever changes are done in IPv6 can not protect a user if the user likes using an application designed to track him. The "problem" may not lie on the application itself, but it certainly doesn't lie on IPv6 either (read: HTTP cokies...) Writing a higher-layer protocol or application that tracks you is not the fault of IPv6. It's like blaming Ethernet for allowing a site in Australia to reach Europe given Ethernet was only designed for local area networks. The issue at hand is: what does IPv6 directly does to leak information about the local machine? Is this a problem? If it is (at all) is it possible to fix and how? -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBC74ZWG7MUILBZN7SMCRUBDPTLNZM@cs.luc.edu Tue Oct 29 12:38:57 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-yh0-f71.google.com (mail-yh0-f71.google.com [209.85.213.71]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F94317DC9 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:38:57 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-yh0-f71.google.com with SMTP id f64sf401663yha.6 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:38:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=JwE9JoG+WKT2ccafCIoF710vMOsVn6AXHN9BewX/kXg=; b=RVM64hrWBkgMVpHyFuBRbWMo1Zv7ddhA0PrUf2CRqLf4jpsAxwrStRlZSbvHT9IvM+ IcYGIuFc94NBeCTIRDvzzA/S5oyWYJkwtJyi5DgDw0op7ELPhoKfDd9V2HeainQK3pvu HxNLSeDTONf5Bekq9VfprNAo57xc10bG2MO1hUZMzcBM2RySPOX7M8zvj5bPXYmG1ght CCe+xQUb5xoXpJNIo4lHjdw3CoZ+S6nXYox5cSUWbmCqgt4I9Mt7we+Y2pL/h7rV6flZ PkhAZLbZ9jcJyay/Nn1TNfW3UGP3+f/5uNDGkVS1+mWKFY1lj+hYOV9SjpI0ogtI3f/4 r4WA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnZw9Pc3fMoXS1aoxikVflIK/Di012899JZK9DTR+leQmiYZCx3ijLIz3Z3X5tZb/O7FP5g X-Received: by 10.58.204.2 with SMTP id ku2mr276446vec.39.1383068336725; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:38:56 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.182.128.103 with SMTP id nn7ls91131obb.63.gmail; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:38:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.73.231 with SMTP id o7mr581405obv.34.1383068336594; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:38:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-x231.google.com (mail-ob0-x231.google.com [2607:f8b0:4003:c01::231]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y10si12925610obw.66.2013.10.29.10.38.56 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:38:56 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of scott.brim@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c01::231 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4003:c01::231; Received: by mail-ob0-f177.google.com with SMTP id vb8so221459obc.22 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:38:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.60.103.106 with SMTP id fv10mr575702oeb.44.1383068336436; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:38:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.2.134 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:38:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <526FF124.2030809@alvarezp.ods.org> References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526E250E.5050607@massar.ch> <526E267E.2070705@massar.ch> <526E2A56.7070503@massar.ch> <526E2E0C.904@massar.ch> <526F831C.5080408@massar.ch> <526FF124.2030809@alvarezp.ods.org> From: Scott Brim Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:38:36 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Why /64 To: Octavio Alvarez Cc: Jeroen Massar , Peter Dordal , "" X-Original-Sender: scott.brim@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of scott.brim@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c01::231 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=scott.brim@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e012277b4e4bbc504e9e4b0f0 X-UID: 42 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 1797 --089e012277b4e4bbc504e9e4b0f0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Octavio Alvarez wrote: > Writing a higher-layer protocol or application that tracks you is not > the fault of IPv6. It's like blaming Ethernet for allowing a site in > Australia to reach Europe given Ethernet was only designed for local > area networks. > > The issue at hand is: what does IPv6 directly does to leak information > about the local machine? Is this a problem? If it is (at all) is it > possible to fix and how? Right, and: Avoid designing the fundamental protocols of the Internet such that privacy is impossible, even if they fix the non-fundamental parts. --089e012277b4e4bbc504e9e4b0f0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Octavio Alvarez <alvarezp@alvarezp.ods.org> wrote:
Writing a higher-layer protocol or application that tracks you is not
the fault of IPv6. It's like blaming Ethernet for allowing a site in
Australia to reach Europe given Ethernet was only designed for local
area networks.

The issue at hand is: what does IPv6 directly does to leak information
about the local machine? Is this a problem? If it is (at all) is it
possible to fix and how?

Right, and: Avoid designing the fundamental protocols of the Internet such that privacy is impossible, even if they fix the non-fundamental parts.
--089e012277b4e4bbc504e9e4b0f0-- From pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBZ7HX6JQKGQEFYBXXVQ@cs.luc.edu Tue Oct 29 12:44:08 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-qa0-f71.google.com (mail-qa0-f71.google.com [209.85.216.71]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8E8F17DC9 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:44:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-qa0-f71.google.com with SMTP id w8sf638455qac.10 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:44:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=zzc8fBMHu8kJ4ENZVHLxvlZN40GeMPQpsh/nfDwYGUw=; b=O4LJTDqQPM6Lv3c4Bbbt3eCUWmkpsmA6vl7wiBO4eXKIV44osQaAhkTttBzbjWEIEB dNIrj2wAb/c5mxPxyT4ZPVTPdJbSD6PPYihXkLlJ6mesaghpRyOWVwP048O5TUf3vLpH IcjwqG1AVqwApj/CMIenlT+6XrV2KZskJ2KDkatxB7c/zJoEDR9s5GIrTto8SlFL/imH 0vMbJTWidfDUJVGXuZ0zAM0H8gZ5oTQ7ds5X1NYkDaYPQho0BKc6mksoNqWH8H71TgvW zxgj3MwFiTVxaFdEpTlJK1HX3RF4WbYsjhOz41iLtH49lsV7XU5UEuwYd1wJOJuwrnWg MVsw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkH3xdLmJyQjTeYgrgre7GzkJVd2ci+pgBC8WqHNHrUf0aDAqjwBrKEts4Y5Xxp78N9y7Eb X-Received: by 10.58.171.135 with SMTP id au7mr346477vec.22.1383068647211; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:44:07 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.182.52.136 with SMTP id t8ls110093obo.60.gmail; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:44:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.34.194 with SMTP id b2mr488146obj.41.1383068647039; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:44:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-f69.google.com (mail-oa0-f69.google.com [209.85.219.69]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u6si12933073obi.67.2013.10.29.10.44.06 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:44:06 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBZXHX6JQKGQEWDYCTIY@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-oa0-f69.google.com with SMTP id n12sf574107oag.0 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:44:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.142.67 with SMTP id ru3mr282572obb.17.1383068646741; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:44:06 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.30.170 with SMTP id t10ls249438igh.9.gmail; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:44:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.67.30.164 with SMTP id kf4mr1583444pad.13.1383068646494; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:44:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id gv2si15457520pbb.341.2013.10.29.10.44.06 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:44:06 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6F3A21E8083; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:44:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EB5411E818C for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:43:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3je0mdI22qT8 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:42:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sobre.alvarezp.com (sobre.alvarezp.com [173.230.155.94]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86D5E11E8137 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:42:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.251] (189.220.45.207.cable.dyn.cableonline.com.mx [189.220.45.207]) by sobre.alvarezp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1EE9E613D; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:42:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <526FF3A8.2040206@alvarezp.ods.org> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:43:04 -0700 From: Octavio Alvarez User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130821 Icedove/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexandru Petrescu Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <526CF079.7030804@globis.net> <526E41BC.3080303@gmail.com> <526E9735.8080708@alvarezp.ods.org> <20131028.184553.78794962.sthaug@nethelp.no> <1382988218.92574.YahooMailNeo@web142504.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <526F8BC0.505@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <526F8BC0.505@gmail.com> Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" , "v6ops@globis.net" , "tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk" , "fred@cisco.com" , "fgont@si6networks.com" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: alvarezp@alvarezp.ods.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBZXHX6JQKGQEWDYCTIY@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBZXHX6JQKGQEWDYCTIY@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-UID: 43 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 903 On 10/29/2013 03:19 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > Le 28/10/2013 20:23, Mark ZZZ Smith a =E9crit : >> > Yes, I expect routing to work on larger-than-64 and bitwise boundaries. > = > But is also a matter of the subnet mask of the smallest possible subnet. > Can one have an IPv6 subnet comprising only 4 entities, on > Ethernet-compatible, and using Stateless Address Auto-Configuration? Why would you want to do that? ISPs could use this to give homes just 1 address, breaking innovation again and again, because of whatever lame excuse, from misinformation to greed. Public IP addresses, even if firewalled are useful to end devices. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld@cs.luc.edu Tue Oct 29 14:56:57 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from lukasiewicz.cs.luc.edu (lukasiewicz.cs.luc.edu [147.126.65.57]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 236CC17DC9 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:56:57 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [10.213.119.4] (unknown [10.38.2.42]) by lukasiewicz.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPA id E3F0D6A237; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:56:56 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <52701308.8050003@cs.luc.edu> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:56:56 -0500 From: Peter Dordal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeroen Massar CC: "" , Peter Dordal Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526E250E.5050607@massar.ch> <526E267E.2070705@massar.ch> <526E2A56.7070503@massar.ch> <526E2E0C.904@massar.ch> <526E9B7F.3020004@cs.luc.edu> <526F831C.5080408@massar.ch> In-Reply-To: <526F831C.5080408@massar.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 44 Status: O X-Keywords: NonJunk Content-Length: 4394 On 10/29/2013 04:42 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: > On 2013-10-28 18:14 , Peter Dordal wrote: >> On 10/28/2013 04:27 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: >>> See my other messages: IPv6 Privacy addresses are a myth, they do not >>> work. You can track people even when you just see IP addresses and >>> ignore the upper layers. The upper layers just make it easier. >>> >>> Greets, >>> Jeroen >>> >>> >> In what sense exactly is this claim meant?I agree that "privacy" >> addresses are in many scenarios not all that private, >> but I am not sure that makes them useless. >> >> 1. Suppose I connect both at work and home; each site has >> a different /64 prefix. I do not want anyone to correlate my work >> and home traffic. > For different sites, not using the MAC-derived EUI-64 is indeed a great > thing. But you could just as well use DHCPv6 or just pick random number > like ::5 and use that insted. I can't use ::5 because my office mate might also like 5. Perhaps the issue though is that we should call them "random" addresses rather than "privacy" addresses? As for DHCPv6, the (one) advantage of SLAAC is that it lets me pick my own low-order address bits. > JM: The actual IPv6 Privacy address, including the randomization and > expiration does not add much there in avoiding tracking. > > .... > > (If you want to hide on the IP level, use mixnet...) And if I am going to use tor from the office, I might want to be particularly sure that I don't use the same IP address I use for my everyday work. Ok, privacy addresses are more like window curtains than Faraday cages. But they still protect against some correlations. (In this they are not unlike so-called "private browsing") > > pld: 2. Suppose I connect to two different remote sites, A and B, > while at work. I don't want someone reviewing the logs at A and B > to know the same host made both these connections. > > > JM: But they can make a pretty good guess. There will be a lot of meta data > > in those connections, much of it that will make you unique. This depends very much on the protocol. Http is not a good example here; http has scary tons of metadata. I can easily envision situations where identity "guesses" would be pretty flimsy, **at least if the attacker had access only to the remote endpoint**. > JM: Try this for the fun of it: > - keep your cookies that you have > - google for something common "how do you..." > and see how autocomplete answers (that is, if you still have that > enabled). or if you do not (smart! but also makes you unique again) > just hit the search button and see which answers you get > > now clear those cookies and change that IPv6 address of yours to > something else random and try again. Gee, you say, same results!? > > Now ask a colleague to repeat the same thing on a different host and > he/she will be getting different results. Gee, why? There is more meta > information than that... For the record, I got the *same* result on every machine: How do you take a screenshot on a mac get rid of bedbugs divide fractions get bed bugs (Some of these may be local to Chicago. Now I am worried about bedbugs.) > JM: And HTTP is not the only way to detect things, every protocol has meta > data. Client-side smtp? ssh? More to the point, people who are more concerned about privacy may pay more attention to these things than I do, and choose "safer" protocols. >> pld: I want to choose different IPv6 addresses at my end >> for each of these connections, differing of course only in the >> low-order bits. Again I use SLAAC. How do I create >> the second IPv6 address except by using privacy addresses? > JM: The privacy extensions are not per-application and neither > per-connection. They are time-based instead and thus if you make > connections during a certain bucket of time they all are coming at the > same time. I don't believe this is a "MUST", though I agree that concurrent use of multiple IPv6 addresses is not quite in the spirit of rfc4941. I'm back to my earlier point: privacy addresses are like private browsing: imperfect, possibly even to the point of being misleading, but worth having. I've been watching your [that is, Jeroen Massar's] _How the Internet Sees You_ presentation, but I am not (yet) convinced that privacy addresses have no value in any circumstances. Peter Dordal Loyola University Chicago From pld+bncBCOYDX7L4IHBBKO6YCJQKGQEM3SZXCI@cs.luc.edu Tue Oct 29 16:56:57 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-gg0-f197.google.com (mail-gg0-f197.google.com [209.85.161.197]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEB8417BB9 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 16:56:57 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-gg0-f197.google.com with SMTP id r5sf649329gga.0 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:56:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:from:to:subject:thread-topic :thread-index:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :mime-version:cc:precedence:list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive :list-post:list-help:list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :content-language:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=fcq2LKUNf2OoXjFEKOsGd2LPIsBQveZMtltFSlNl4LQ=; b=VGOMBnAfBIk5YHbHFtr/8ZUOMaL291QFXPLxEdNMPm/0ECc+O7GqoOfYF8+VoA1YEz hm+WbovV9Ds9J6oQfG5SkkcPrMeA5I/cup10Emd+u444M0DMOO2IGcJVcCZ4AkIRYMef 60P9/tJPyg48aCewOC3OLt0/39+POUQP+DT+UALe1XU8mrC7zYzHm/HBEYnTmU3U8EqE WtssWtu4NBj5CiIkurSYMte6TLz4iY7HEaBbiP3BKFfKapnDTP8uoH6QwQcvT7WMnCGN CqE2LOO+mbd5rb8/bM8UBw89vYqXk9gN961UuK5q4o9X89ijjToMZyTv2KoowOpYIyAu 0thg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmU+WQCWZPc5gfZvPy84uszahC2RoKMtvtRzQ06w8H4o4/+0Fm6CN2wi6VKpUX9G7cvq/L4 X-Received: by 10.236.73.164 with SMTP id v24mr1543282yhd.24.1383083817260; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:56:57 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.182.28.73 with SMTP id z9ls146089obg.83.gmail; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:56:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.166.40 with SMTP id zd8mr1376940obb.25.1383083817118; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:56:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-f71.google.com (mail-oa0-f71.google.com [209.85.219.71]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id sy1si13358603obc.103.2013.10.29.14.56.56 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:56:57 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCOYDX7L4IHBBKG6YCJQKGQEVDWHVFI@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-oa0-f71.google.com with SMTP id j6sf1565151oag.2 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:56:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.85.109 with SMTP id g13mr20967igz.1.1383083816883; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:56:56 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.126.39 with SMTP id mv7ls380884igb.41.gmail; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:56:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.6.66 with SMTP id y2mr1834592pby.60.1383083816677; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:56:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id f10si16904093pac.133.2013.10.29.14.56.56 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:56:56 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3C7F11E81B6; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:56:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C52A11E8264 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:54:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I5n-CmniNnxX for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:54:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stl-mbsout-02.boeing.com (stl-mbsout-02.boeing.com [130.76.96.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0101C11E8214 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:54:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stl-mbsout-02.boeing.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by stl-mbsout-02.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id r9TLs811012899 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 16:54:08 -0500 Received: from XCH-PHX-505.sw.nos.boeing.com (xch-phx-505.sw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.239.61]) by stl-mbsout-02.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id r9TLs7Lh012895 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Tue, 29 Oct 2013 16:54:08 -0500 Received: from XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.6.120]) by XCH-PHX-505.sw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.4.133]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:54:07 -0700 From: "Manfredi, Albert E" To: Brian E Carpenter Subject: RE: Why /64 Thread-Topic: Why /64 Thread-Index: AQHO1I578MVVSD9SCUOfg4rMEy/JH5oMqa4A//+NVCA= Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:54:06 +0000 Message-ID: <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AF4FE@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526D3706.5070409@alvarezp.ods.org> <526E43E8.3080601@gmail.com> <526E91A3.8000807@alvarezp.ods.org> <526F888E.20609@gmail.com> <52702A06.2040102@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <52702A06.2040102@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-MML: disable Cc: 6man X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCOYDX7L4IHBBKG6YCJQKGQEVDWHVFI@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBCOYDX7L4IHBBKG6YCJQKGQEVDWHVFI@math.luc.edu Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 45 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 1745 > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian > E Carpenter > These are exactly the words we have already changed, via the approval > of draft-ietf-6man-ug. As soon as that draft exits the RFC Editor queue, > they will read: > > "For all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary > value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long. If derived > from an IEEE MAC-layer address, they must be constructed in Modified > EUI-64 format." > > This thread is about changing the first sentence, which I think you will > find is a contentious proposal with many pros and cons. May I wax philosophic for a second? I too object to the term "required." And I believe in more or less Darwinian survival of the fittest too. CIDR evolved for a reason: the old 32-bit classful scheme became inadequate when the Internet moved from an academic/military net of a few 10s of thousands, to something for the masses. CIDR will re-evolve in IPv6, when the Internet evolves from something for the masses to something for the masses of even tiny things. The idea that any subset of IPv6 addresses MUST have 64 IIDs, let alone the majority subset, is sure not to survive the test of time, in my opinion. Not when you dramatically change the paradigm of what gets connected. Lucky for everyone, we do know how to apply CIDR ubiquitously. I hope we don't design ourselves out of that possibility. Bert -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCC3BTNNVUNBBSO3YKJQKGQE35LHVBI@cs.luc.edu Wed Oct 30 01:57:14 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DATE_IN_PAST_03_06, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-qe0-f70.google.com (mail-qe0-f70.google.com [209.85.128.70]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 874A417BB9 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 01:57:14 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-qe0-f70.google.com with SMTP id 8sf2090937qea.9 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 23:57:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ydxFfDboomodFKqhnd+tODiuuxw8nWR4Hf77QLre4UQ=; b=FqiGhJl37NKqQ9i3F1kKXLkkacxst6TQ3N7XZVC7dXBorKpAcOrpB9SqgEH/qToreF CDslW/w8FySdYXRDyLyT7mbGvkT81uvwrnrZIgJrJPnN8zu7/zKBPqGdObmnikImuhfu lwdIVjYcQ0zoSMlC4Zja3UpxeLNrtkrl5HY4YWbu+Jb9aluaW5cFNMrMd98QCXnzKb2p 5IdAlvnLyorq0ZkaRbzf2C3qEiUN3BvSwaYF4RfPt8bHwcbcaEUP0tBnuFUWWuso+1FM +IXIW2Qakx8UzjfR1bDWLHGrWGCtu8fRm+1Fmx0fcvDQOTNMjLa2XN8JnXOKX8wL3DNN jEAg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkGcXYfHvTYGCZe4jXZeaWPiKhtpFloXACw1kMNY1Lhcs1XGCNe0PvgvMwATVKqrw2TAUKL X-Received: by 10.58.2.98 with SMTP id 2mr1353464vet.3.1383116233846; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 23:57:13 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.182.245.227 with SMTP id xr3ls283260obc.65.gmail; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 23:57:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.237.75 with SMTP id va11mr3062239obc.5.1383116233633; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 23:57:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f197.google.com (mail-ob0-f197.google.com [209.85.214.197]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fm3si14218784oeb.100.2013.10.29.23.57.12 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 29 Oct 2013 23:57:12 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCC3BTNNVUNBBSG3YKJQKGQEZLBKONI@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-ob0-f197.google.com with SMTP id vb8sf2980321obc.0 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 23:57:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.109.193 with SMTP id hu1mr666793igb.6.1383116232601; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 23:57:12 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.178.133 with SMTP id cy5ls2772006igc.0.canary; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 23:57:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.196.168 with SMTP id in8mr1613662pac.18.1383116232331; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 23:57:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id gl1si938317pac.82.2013.10.29.23.57.11 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 23:57:11 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6562021E80CC; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 23:57:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B975D21E80CC for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 23:57:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VlGj73Hyl2PX for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 23:57:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:d10:2000:e::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE9CC21E80D5 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 23:57:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [2001:5c0:1400:a::3b3] by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1VbPi2-0007Oq-A7; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 07:56:54 +0100 Message-ID: <52706F71.40902@si6networks.com> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 22:31:13 -0400 From: Fernando Gont User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexandru Petrescu , Octavio Alvarez , Jeroen Massar Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526D3706.5070409@alvarezp.ods.org> <526E43E8.3080601@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <526E43E8.3080601@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Cc: Tim Chown , "" , "Fred Baker \(fred\)" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: fgont@si6networks.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCC3BTNNVUNBBSG3YKJQKGQEZLBKONI@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBCC3BTNNVUNBBSG3YKJQKGQEZLBKONI@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 46 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 1061 On 10/28/2013 07:00 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > > I think there is a problem in naming that draft. > > I think the intention of it is not to deprecate EUI-64 altogether. If > I'm not wrong EUI-64 is an IEEE concept that IETF reuses, and thus 6man > wouldn't have the prerogatives to 'deprecate EUI-64'. Whaat we mean to deprecate is *Modified EUI-64 IIDs -- that is, Interface identifiers based on the underlying hardware address. > I think the draft _would_ allow to devise an IP address generation > mechanism using an EUI-64 formed from something else which is not a > hardware address. Our I-D recommends draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBC6JRKUP6MDBBEHMYKJQKGQEXPBNOMA@cs.luc.edu Wed Oct 30 02:32:34 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-pa0-f69.google.com (mail-pa0-f69.google.com [209.85.220.69]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DADF18EEC for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 02:32:33 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-pa0-f69.google.com with SMTP id kx10sf834671pab.4 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 00:32:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-transfer-encoding :content-type; bh=1sDarFdhOnZ6bLRHyKfKTz71s6nouYK+BIuwu/aBo+Y=; b=XH+z0TzltuSbxzrBDE+beQmxukxGj/eZRYDdCm9pAMjTzTm98reIV6kDrsm6E57OvA a5Yo5NVO7qlil9x4N72SI2NSJqZfih3tSTGX2pJjTlHRJnqgN18XIYXtCfFa+3pgvIU5 kX+NkhRSi1FK2LvokbZ8edrXo20wKxcbu1kAayjhfYyd223Elcd4ODDq2/niIw/ECqCv jgv5bir9DwwFL7fwG9ez/RPAWRQEvFn9SM7GxpN1IZmMqzNjNqTLiGWAMC0uOe3rzjR6 JvgFdJnWnB0U2tbv4t/QU/9eZHCgvFJ7E7oXkqqIcxOrv+NHHjIotLD3RfEN4v/G1sOR IjaQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkzrEHGVcXIKyK+FtZGtf2Bq+6b1aK8iRBuE+04RZQpTZKqBu14YMg4P3H9shPNsTCvpFnh X-Received: by 10.66.136.47 with SMTP id px15mr581236pab.28.1383118352768; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 00:32:32 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.49.71.209 with SMTP id x17ls389875qeu.83.gmail; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 00:32:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.224.111.195 with SMTP id t3mr5954873qap.49.1383118352571; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 00:32:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-f200.google.com (mail-qc0-f200.google.com [209.85.216.200]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x1si13437444qeq.105.2013.10.30.00.32.32 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Oct 2013 00:32:32 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBC6JRKUP6MDBBEHMYKJQKGQEWVA6GFY@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-qc0-f200.google.com with SMTP id m4sf2021359qcy.3 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 00:32:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.58.107.198 with SMTP id he6mr1466512veb.2.1383118352125; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 00:32:32 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.66.229 with SMTP id i5ls562890igt.10.gmail; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 00:32:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.189.229 with SMTP id gl5mr298837pbc.195.1383118351856; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 00:32:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id ei3si17030795pbc.80.2013.10.30.00.32.31 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 00:32:31 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B10311E821F; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 00:32:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DEC811E8255 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:57:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LEigmcZsG6fz for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:57:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lukasiewicz.cs.luc.edu (lukasiewicz.cs.luc.edu [147.126.65.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E03211E8293 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:56:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.213.119.4] (unknown [10.38.2.42]) by lukasiewicz.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPA id E3F0D6A237; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:56:56 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <52701308.8050003@cs.luc.edu> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:56:56 -0500 From: Peter Dordal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeroen Massar Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526E250E.5050607@massar.ch> <526E267E.2070705@massar.ch> <526E2A56.7070503@massar.ch> <526E2E0C.904@massar.ch> <526E9B7F.3020004@cs.luc.edu> <526F831C.5080408@massar.ch> In-Reply-To: <526F831C.5080408@massar.ch> X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 00:32:29 -0700 Cc: Peter Dordal , "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pld@cs.luc.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBC6JRKUP6MDBBEHMYKJQKGQEWVA6GFY@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBC6JRKUP6MDBBEHMYKJQKGQEWVA6GFY@math.luc.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" X-UID: 47 Status: O X-Keywords: NonJunk Content-Length: 4652 On 10/29/2013 04:42 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: > On 2013-10-28 18:14 , Peter Dordal wrote: >> On 10/28/2013 04:27 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: >>> See my other messages: IPv6 Privacy addresses are a myth, they do not >>> work. You can track people even when you just see IP addresses and >>> ignore the upper layers. The upper layers just make it easier. >>> >>> Greets, >>> Jeroen >>> >>> >> In what sense exactly is this claim meant?I agree that "privacy" >> addresses are in many scenarios not all that private, >> but I am not sure that makes them useless. >> >> 1. Suppose I connect both at work and home; each site has >> a different /64 prefix. I do not want anyone to correlate my work >> and home traffic. > For different sites, not using the MAC-derived EUI-64 is indeed a great > thing. But you could just as well use DHCPv6 or just pick random number > like ::5 and use that insted. I can't use ::5 because my office mate might also like 5. Perhaps the issue though is that we should call them "random" addresses rather than "privacy" addresses? As for DHCPv6, the (one) advantage of SLAAC is that it lets me pick my own low-order address bits. > JM: The actual IPv6 Privacy address, including the randomization and > expiration does not add much there in avoiding tracking. > > .... > > (If you want to hide on the IP level, use mixnet...) And if I am going to use tor from the office, I might want to be particularly sure that I don't use the same IP address I use for my everyday work. Ok, privacy addresses are more like window curtains than Faraday cages. But they still protect against some correlations. (In this they are not unlike so-called "private browsing") > > pld: 2. Suppose I connect to two different remote sites, A and B, > while at work. I don't want someone reviewing the logs at A and B > to know the same host made both these connections. > > > JM: But they can make a pretty good guess. There will be a lot of meta data > > in those connections, much of it that will make you unique. This depends very much on the protocol. Http is not a good example here; http has scary tons of metadata. I can easily envision situations where identity "guesses" would be pretty flimsy, **at least if the attacker had access only to the remote endpoint**. > JM: Try this for the fun of it: > - keep your cookies that you have > - google for something common "how do you..." > and see how autocomplete answers (that is, if you still have that > enabled). or if you do not (smart! but also makes you unique again) > just hit the search button and see which answers you get > > now clear those cookies and change that IPv6 address of yours to > something else random and try again. Gee, you say, same results!? > > Now ask a colleague to repeat the same thing on a different host and > he/she will be getting different results. Gee, why? There is more meta > information than that... For the record, I got the *same* result on every machine: How do you take a screenshot on a mac get rid of bedbugs divide fractions get bed bugs (Some of these may be local to Chicago. Now I am worried about bedbugs.) > JM: And HTTP is not the only way to detect things, every protocol has meta > data. Client-side smtp? ssh? More to the point, people who are more concerned about privacy may pay more attention to these things than I do, and choose "safer" protocols. >> pld: I want to choose different IPv6 addresses at my end >> for each of these connections, differing of course only in the >> low-order bits. Again I use SLAAC. How do I create >> the second IPv6 address except by using privacy addresses? > JM: The privacy extensions are not per-application and neither > per-connection. They are time-based instead and thus if you make > connections during a certain bucket of time they all are coming at the > same time. I don't believe this is a "MUST", though I agree that concurrent use of multiple IPv6 addresses is not quite in the spirit of rfc4941. I'm back to my earlier point: privacy addresses are like private browsing: imperfect, possibly even to the point of being misleading, but worth having. I've been watching your [that is, Jeroen Massar's] _How the Internet Sees You_ presentation, but I am not (yet) convinced that privacy addresses have no value in any circumstances. Peter Dordal Loyola University Chicago -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCC77QGWVMIRBY4QYOJQKGQEYAWF3CI@cs.luc.edu Wed Oct 30 03:50:44 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-yh0-f72.google.com (mail-yh0-f72.google.com [209.85.213.72]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7200F17DFE for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 03:50:44 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-yh0-f72.google.com with SMTP id z20sf2402297yhz.3 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 01:50:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:organization :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Hv1WeSlKOVFHnKrZBB0cmu+WVQ2KMccfF0SF8w5ixrw=; b=K0jc/ar3/9vJqdSlH8HvG7YRQh2uA00ivrRJBQe+LCOgnD1ICkCFTpiqNOdNokdoEg D5J60debxpb8dWaJhO9amCYkcIjZRG9K6MechVLcNS3KjpBoVcHn5w0mKdISmSRBvwH0 Kc1VUZVlGD8p/45t7f/OIuLKm+kTxGMvoAzO2A6BQNUHnQEVnD9z+cshIr5aKk2t2XdH 2iHBWgV4XTgHBZLlvSRpXCGgN3pks85YP65ftaJcRj4ZXwC8H4n12hBCtBnZrLumfAws ypA9J9JBkO9qbgnx/X2+mvjIRllz3r/9YXguE6sPiYs+L2HsEPL0MKHYK25RPjnEpvFi mRtw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmsPqr7NqKWm9p8bOnWhbtvZLeHewuVNp8iJ5XOcuAOGgkDFoqQPgm+Iia5rBea4fiyDJvo X-Received: by 10.236.62.231 with SMTP id y67mr3241683yhc.3.1383123043876; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 01:50:43 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.182.250.137 with SMTP id zc9ls302373obc.68.gmail; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 01:50:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.60.141.225 with SMTP id rr1mr873186oeb.55.1383123043655; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 01:50:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f199.google.com (mail-ob0-f199.google.com [209.85.214.199]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j6si14516596oel.135.2013.10.30.01.50.43 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Oct 2013 01:50:43 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBYUQYOJQKGQEI2HBEOI@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-ob0-f199.google.com with SMTP id gq1sf3254286obb.2 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 01:50:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.134.166 with SMTP id pl6mr803448igb.2.1383123043003; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 01:50:43 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.122.74 with SMTP id lq10ls2810305igb.36.canary; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 01:50:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.145.4 with SMTP id sq4mr797973pab.178.1383123042781; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 01:50:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id w1si1227274pan.141.2013.10.30.01.50.42 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 01:50:42 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D177D11E81F8; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 01:50:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B660711E8118 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 01:50:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8JN2WO50OxHW for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 01:50:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from icaras.de.unfix.org (icaras.de.unfix.org [78.47.209.234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46E2811E81F8 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 01:50:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kami.ch.unfix.org (84-73-144-213.dclient.hispeed.ch [84.73.144.213]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by icaras.de.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3C74D801C2A2; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:50:15 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <5270C819.7000209@massar.ch> Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:49:29 +0100 From: Jeroen Massar Organization: Massar MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Octavio Alvarez Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526E250E.5050607@massar.ch> <526E267E.2070705@massar.ch> <526E2A56.7070503@massar.ch> <526E2E0C.904@massar.ch> <526E9B7F.3020004@cs.luc.e du> <526F831C.5080408@massar.ch> <526FF124.2030809@alvarezp.ods.org> In-Reply-To: <526FF124.2030809@alvarezp.ods.org> Cc: "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pld@math.luc.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBYUQYOJQKGQEI2HBEOI@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBAABBYUQYOJQKGQEI2HBEOI@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 48 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 8795 [merging multiple emails in one thread, thus a nice long one; TLDR: IP does not make you private in any way] On 2013-10-28 20:41, Octavio Alvarez wrote: [..] >> Please explain this "anti-privacy" concept. > > Made up word, as in "explicitly not privacy". It's not the same "this > address will not make it as easy for a tracker to track me at least in > some applications but it is possible if you try hard enough and it > will cost some more resources to the tracker" than "here you go, it's > me and you even know what brand of NIC I'm using". If you do not want to expose that randomize the bits a bit. Microsoft does this for the various Windows implementations exactly for this reason. > Also, Web != Internet. I am only using HTTP as an example as it is one of many easy ways to get extra details. Note that even if you do not want to use HTTP various "automatic update" tools will do it for you (the Internet is HTTP after all), and generate an even bigger signature as it effectively shows which tools you have on your machine that are able to do these updates. One only has to look at the SrcIP<->DstIP combo to see who you are contacting, the lowest port used (if any and if you have it) indicates the server thus you can automatically learn these, use reverse/asn/whois lookup to figure out who it is, and keep on correlating with other connections. If you don't have a port then that is just a bit less info, just keep a count of 'occurrences' on each side and you can figure out that a user has less connections than a server. (statistically at least) Even if your SrcIP changes, you will at one point connect to DstIP again (or something in that /48) as the update tool wants more updates. If you are the only Jitsi user, the only one without Adobe updates, etc, gotcha, you are special... And no, the population size does not matter, you are special. If you like it or not: On the Internet you are a very unique snowflake. [..] >> As it states 'more difficult'. Since 2001 (RFC3041 which has the same >> wording and intent) this kind of tracking tech and the compute power has >> advanced enough though that the difficulty is futile. > > Under that logic, punching a hole on my house roof with a drill is > just more difficult than opening a door, and given a drill is easy to > buy and not so expensive for people that want, let's all leave our > doors unlocked and open. If your house is from the 1800s and still build of wood, then yes, if you did not bother to upgrade your security and go along with the times you will be vulnerable. Instead of your 'leave all doors unlocked', you can realize that that wooden roof is the bad part thus acknowledge that problem, be aware of it and stop spreading the myth that a wooden roof is any good. But that is where your analogy stops, as in the 21st century we would just make a stone/concrete/multilayered roof and such a roofing problem would be resolved. (And hopefully you put proper locks on doors, close the windows etc etc etc) The multilayered roof though might be relevant in this analogy: use a mix-net like Tor and voila, you are anonymous and nobody can peek in through the roof anymore what you are doing in your bedroom.... > I *also think*, however, that changing address without restarting all > connections just nullifies the effect of any changing-address privacy > extension. Restarting *all* connections with the new IP will just demonstrate that you changed IP and are reconnecting to all previous sites. > I'm not a pro-removing-EUI-64-device-IDs, I'm just saying that > randomizing bits does something helpful. If you think it is helpful, giving the hints I give above and in other mails, how exactly is it "helpful" at all? Note, I am against removing /64 length. And I am just stating that the privacy addresses are nothing special and are not a bonus one is getting because one has /64 bits of randomness. Note also that if one choses to do so with the help of DHCPv6 one can already use longer than /64 prefixes in a network. On 2013-10-29 18:32, Octavio Alvarez wrote: > On 10/29/2013 02:42 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: >> Try this for the fun of it: >> - keep your cookies that you have >> - google for something common "how do you..." >> and see how autocomplete answers (that is, if you still have that >> enabled). or if you do not (smart! but also makes you unique again) >> just hit the search button and see which answers you get >> >> now clear those cookies and change that IPv6 address of yours to >> something else random and try again. Gee, you say, same results!? > > That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It has, it shows that without ('reset' at least) upper level protocol details various companies easily show that they can know who you are based on other bits. Note also that IP is nothing without an application, it is needed. The issue I raised for this privacy-extensions-subthread of 'why /64' is that an IP address is easily tracked and that the so called 'privacy extensions' do not help there. Tools and techniques exist to easily track you. It does not matter how large the subnet is you are living in, as the adversary can estimate that size and estimate how many people are using that subnet (be that a /128, a /64 or a /48). Note that that tracking is *independent* of the upper protocols. Just the mere fact that some people connect to X and others connect to Y makes them easy correlated to each other. > Whatever changes are done in IPv6 can not protect a user if the user > likes using an application designed to track him. The "problem" may not > lie on the application itself, but it certainly doesn't lie on IPv6 > either (read: HTTP cokies...) You are forgetting that IP is always used in combination with TCP and UDP (and rarely with something like SCTP or something else). Rarely (but hopefully more often) folks will use IPSEC to protect the lower layer bits; but if one can see those bits crypto analysis can be done to assign an identity too. IP (be that IPv4 or IPv6) will never ever make you 'private' or 'anonymous'. And no, it does not really matter how much you randomize those bits. > Writing a higher-layer protocol or application that tracks you is not > the fault of IPv6. It's like blaming Ethernet for allowing a site in > Australia to reach Europe given Ethernet was only designed for local > area networks. But as I stated, only seeing IP is good enough for this 'tracking'. As a small hint, most of this tracking (or better 'correlation') today happens simply with NetFlow; which just sees src/dst IP and the protocol and port numbers there are just extra details. They don't even have to bother looking inside the packets; though it would make it much easier for many correlations especially with so many people giving too many details away, hence the well-known and easily demonstrated HTTP method I mentioned. > The issue at hand is: what does IPv6 directly does to leak information > about the local machine? Is this a problem? If it is (at all) is it > possible to fix and how? The IPv6 specification itself does not leak anything. Unless you think it is a problem that the world knows that you are yet another Mac user based on your NIC. Hence why Microsoft one-time randomizes the EUI-64 portion, that "solve" that part. It is the way that IP and its underlying protocols (TCP, UDP, SCTP, etc) are implemented that leak details. If they did not nmap or even passive fingerprints would not be possible. Note that these are typically miniscule differences in the stacks. Very little that can be done by the IETF to resolve these kind of things. On 2013-10-29 18:38, Scott Brim wrote: > Right, and: Avoid designing the fundamental protocols of the Internet > such that privacy is impossible, even if they fix the non-fundamental > parts. IP is not made for Privacy. It never has and never will. It is an end-to-end communications protocol. Hence unless you use a mixnet (eg Tor) which end-middle-middle-middle-end you are not going to private. Our add-on friend IPSEC (which is supposed to be in the base IPv6 specification but has been silently ignored by everybody but Microsoft (Direct Access and Xbox One) only hides&/auths your payload. The IP layer will still reveal who you are talking to and thus adversaries that look at connections will know who you are and who you are talking to and will correlate and will figure you out even when changing IP addresses all the time or heck prefixes in many cases. Greets, Jeroen -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBAABBDEWYOJQKGQEHJLPFSA@cs.luc.edu Wed Oct 30 04:02:06 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-ea0-f198.google.com (mail-ea0-f198.google.com [209.85.215.198]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84BE717DFE for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 04:02:06 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-ea0-f198.google.com with SMTP id z15sf1297424ead.1 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 02:02:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:organization:mime-version :to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=TCDw9waHQx6wC7xg7c+OxlHGTQKGDJAJeWEez+EUikY=; b=cNCrV4PPIoLh1lidYqmnmgSxXV6otiNPqiwQjzJPHWNIcvbsaZxmM1PUJY+L37dmj+ CPKdV5S50D00Lml592rcbbkJK9Xh6qY2/e/05F4jFoRfXHSasW3uerEpPqsAegVg+ZRa 9Jwgk8R+15iZuR4reaf5vumjXJXd8Eteh6wLdA5f8xQDIljTPeKVK5mIHKlZfu+xrrDW /HWn64sNhVGiSSyr7lCCzUr+vxJLbY/4MMh4abAKhUIU8QBPimhU9QLJkQplh37CUuGY 5WnSzL8jD0/fbNkZBds2AumeSzpmV+UDYjJ17ji4tAKOAa0cDtKkHswz/UPAlU+r+TeT GAyQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnFzFP/glZjPkNPy1Mva/7jqbPRxrY0BpSccsWMF4ffC8LCpqkgQq1pZOMEvjGInTpMKFco X-Received: by 10.152.21.165 with SMTP id w5mr1703091lae.3.1383123724917; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 02:02:04 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.180.198.170 with SMTP id jd10ls161721wic.35.gmail; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 02:02:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.15.64.1 with SMTP id n1mr3929532eex.15.1383123724650; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 02:02:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from icaras.de.unfix.org (icaras.de.unfix.org. [2a01:4f8:130:74c1:5054:ff:fec4:f7d4]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t7si16271327eeh.97.2013.10.30.02.02.04 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Oct 2013 02:02:04 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 2a01:4f8:130:74c1:5054:ff:fec4:f7d4 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of jeroen@massar.ch) client-ip=2a01:4f8:130:74c1:5054:ff:fec4:f7d4; Received: from kami.ch.unfix.org (84-73-144-213.dclient.hispeed.ch [84.73.144.213]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by icaras.de.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2A7C5801C2A2; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:01:57 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <5270CAD7.4020300@massar.ch> Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:01:11 +0100 From: Jeroen Massar Organization: Massar MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Dordal CC: "" Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526E250E.5050607@massar.ch> <526E267E.2070705@massar.ch> <526E2A56.7070503@massar.ch> <526E2E0C.904@massar.ch> <526E9B7F.3020004@cs.luc.edu> <526F831C.5080408@massar.ch> <52701308.8050003@cs.luc.edu> In-Reply-To: <52701308.8050003@cs.luc.edu> X-Original-Sender: jeroen@massar.ch X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 2a01:4f8:130:74c1:5054:ff:fec4:f7d4 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of jeroen@massar.ch) smtp.mail=jeroen@massar.ch Precedence: list Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 49 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 4223 On 2013-10-29 20:56, Peter Dordal wrote: > On 10/29/2013 04:42 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: [..big snip..] >>> 1. Suppose I connect both at work and home; each site has >>> a different /64 prefix. I do not want anyone to correlate my work >>> and home traffic. >> For different sites, not using the MAC-derived EUI-64 is indeed a great >> thing. But you could just as well use DHCPv6 or just pick random number >> like ::5 and use that insted. > > I can't use ::5 because my office mate might also like 5. That can be a problem in that scheme yes. Hence why DHCPv6 exists. > Perhaps the issue though is that we should call them "random" addresses > rather than "privacy" addresses? That would help yes. They definitely are not private indeed. [..] >> (If you want to hide on the IP level, use mixnet...) > And if I am going to use tor from the office, I might want to be > particularly sure that I don't use the same IP address I use for my > everyday work. Depends on where your adversary is. If he can see you talking to the first Tor hop, then yes; but otherwise it should not be a problem. > Ok, privacy addresses are more like window curtains than Faraday cages. That analogy works for me. > But they still protect against some correlations. (In this they are not > unlike so-called "private browsing") Quite. As even if your cookies are gone, if you connect in the same time frame from the same IP address, with the same browser User-Agent and other factors (try EFF panopticlick in private browsing, lots of fun); you will be the same person for most sites which are a bit good at correlation. [..] > I can easily envision situations where identity "guesses" would be > pretty flimsy, > **at least if the attacker had access only to the remote endpoint**. If I am looking for 1 person out of a million and I can narrow it down to 200, quite a few adversaries would be quite happy already. [..] > For the record, I got the *same* result on every machine: How many people are using your IP address/prefix? ;) Does the IP address you use change often? Note also that you tried the autocomplete, which gives relevant search queries for you / your area. It is typically better test to check for a search query that you regularly do (as the way you type it and if you have autocomplete=on the speed and typos you make is what helps them identify you). [..] >> JM: And HTTP is not the only way to detect things, every protocol has >> meta data. > Client-side smtp? ssh? More to the point, people who are more concerned > about privacy may pay more attention to these things than I do, and choose > "safer" protocols. Depends all on what you are protecting against. >>> pld: I want to choose different IPv6 addresses at my end >>> for each of these connections, differing of course only in the >>> low-order bits. Again I use SLAAC. How do I create >>> the second IPv6 address except by using privacy addresses? >>> >> JM: The privacy extensions are not per-application and neither >> per-connection. They are time-based instead and thus if you make >> connections during a certain bucket of time they all are coming at the >> same time. >> > I don't believe this is a "MUST", though I agree that concurrent use of > multiple IPv6 addresses is not quite in the spirit of rfc4941. Ack. > I'm back to my earlier point: privacy addresses are like private browsing: > imperfect, possibly even to the point of being misleading, but worth > having. IMHO they are very misleading. In 2001 when they where 'invented' it was reasonable to call them 'privacy'. In 2013 far from with all the things learned and tech that has evolved. > I've been watching your [that is, Jeroen Massar's] _How the Internet > Sees You_ > presentation, but I am not (yet) convinced that privacy addresses > have no value in any circumstances. Trust me, they do not have any value whatsoever. The above suggestion about an IP per connection/app would only allow the adversary to count how many connections you made or how many apps you have running on your host. And thus make it easier to figure out which one of many you are. Yes, it would explode the database a bit, but wh00p, big-data is definitely there in 2013. Greets, Jeroen From pld+bncBCC77QGWVMIRBGUWYOJQKGQEJFRBIXA@cs.luc.edu Wed Oct 30 04:02:19 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-ve0-f200.google.com (mail-ve0-f200.google.com [209.85.128.200]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBAC217DFE for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 04:02:18 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-ve0-f200.google.com with SMTP id cz12sf2504219veb.11 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 02:02:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:organization :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=5PkAIbksIp+h5rqn6ICPRG7peRW2O/1F4mJewqC/uvQ=; b=Yim2cW25R8hRjR0lwFRtmz3O261Boo7YnwhYeR01DwEYlVYqpFtQTC2MeU4//IAHl2 DIsfUmEMCO5jlHKO1+hF2umBhcRrw+L31WiXcH0MX7Qox9nLQ0OgOxq/L3x7TTD/6KAG yunRvqZB8RxrPW+EwsULnxSgXl9SH5C9ABL7Ak5q1mJ30xCCz6VLeXJ3gynFMpxA2uze DGoArk3eRdB9AMItkulGRLq8jsoeoDW91QG8BFhUmJrug0MPp3Sf+duauE38AYCWcVs0 WkOWkopRSKIL/LYVch/O0eHzGsU7bAQyvftXP/vN1VGNUpBSiTm2jVU1c83W+4+cy3lR 4d1w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkj1y6mRPc5nKva2txHgRiyzcRqDQ1uAyPtO2I5CgG08LHMN2ftsFFA1UOEvWkwlKR1ZpS1 X-Received: by 10.58.75.199 with SMTP id e7mr1507221vew.20.1383123738454; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 02:02:18 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.49.116.3 with SMTP id js3ls413589qeb.93.gmail; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 02:02:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.236.150.48 with SMTP id y36mr713341yhj.75.1383123738283; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 02:02:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yh0-f69.google.com (mail-yh0-f69.google.com [209.85.213.69]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l43si11553328yha.262.2013.10.30.02.02.18 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Oct 2013 02:02:18 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBGUWYOJQKGQECJ5DZZQ@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-yh0-f69.google.com with SMTP id v1sf2452985yhn.4 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 02:02:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.58.237.10 with SMTP id uy10mr1630073vec.16.1383123738160; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 02:02:18 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.62.33 with SMTP id v1ls2688811igr.4.canary; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 02:02:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.217.166 with SMTP id oz6mr2109960pac.22.1383123737949; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 02:02:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id cj2si17249726pbc.207.2013.10.30.02.02.17 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 02:02:17 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E07D11E8113; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 02:02:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD85F11E828B for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 02:02:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X399bqV-D7Ci for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 02:02:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from icaras.de.unfix.org (icaras.de.unfix.org [78.47.209.234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED08711E8321 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 02:02:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kami.ch.unfix.org (84-73-144-213.dclient.hispeed.ch [84.73.144.213]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by icaras.de.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2A7C5801C2A2; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:01:57 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <5270CAD7.4020300@massar.ch> Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:01:11 +0100 From: Jeroen Massar Organization: Massar MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Dordal Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526E250E.5050607@massar.ch> <526E267E.2070705@massar.ch> <526E2A56.7070503@massar.ch> <526E2E0C.904@massar.ch> <526E9B7F.3020004@cs.luc.edu> <526F831C.5080408@massar.ch> <52701308.8050003@cs.l uc.edu> In-Reply-To: <52701308.8050003@cs.luc.edu> Cc: "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pld@math.luc.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBGUWYOJQKGQECJ5DZZQ@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBAABBGUWYOJQKGQECJ5DZZQ@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 50 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 4481 On 2013-10-29 20:56, Peter Dordal wrote: > On 10/29/2013 04:42 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: [..big snip..] >>> 1. Suppose I connect both at work and home; each site has >>> a different /64 prefix. I do not want anyone to correlate my work >>> and home traffic. >> For different sites, not using the MAC-derived EUI-64 is indeed a great >> thing. But you could just as well use DHCPv6 or just pick random number >> like ::5 and use that insted. > > I can't use ::5 because my office mate might also like 5. That can be a problem in that scheme yes. Hence why DHCPv6 exists. > Perhaps the issue though is that we should call them "random" addresses > rather than "privacy" addresses? That would help yes. They definitely are not private indeed. [..] >> (If you want to hide on the IP level, use mixnet...) > And if I am going to use tor from the office, I might want to be > particularly sure that I don't use the same IP address I use for my > everyday work. Depends on where your adversary is. If he can see you talking to the first Tor hop, then yes; but otherwise it should not be a problem. > Ok, privacy addresses are more like window curtains than Faraday cages. That analogy works for me. > But they still protect against some correlations. (In this they are not > unlike so-called "private browsing") Quite. As even if your cookies are gone, if you connect in the same time frame from the same IP address, with the same browser User-Agent and other factors (try EFF panopticlick in private browsing, lots of fun); you will be the same person for most sites which are a bit good at correlation. [..] > I can easily envision situations where identity "guesses" would be > pretty flimsy, > **at least if the attacker had access only to the remote endpoint**. If I am looking for 1 person out of a million and I can narrow it down to 200, quite a few adversaries would be quite happy already. [..] > For the record, I got the *same* result on every machine: How many people are using your IP address/prefix? ;) Does the IP address you use change often? Note also that you tried the autocomplete, which gives relevant search queries for you / your area. It is typically better test to check for a search query that you regularly do (as the way you type it and if you have autocomplete=on the speed and typos you make is what helps them identify you). [..] >> JM: And HTTP is not the only way to detect things, every protocol has >> meta data. > Client-side smtp? ssh? More to the point, people who are more concerned > about privacy may pay more attention to these things than I do, and choose > "safer" protocols. Depends all on what you are protecting against. >>> pld: I want to choose different IPv6 addresses at my end >>> for each of these connections, differing of course only in the >>> low-order bits. Again I use SLAAC. How do I create >>> the second IPv6 address except by using privacy addresses? >>> >> JM: The privacy extensions are not per-application and neither >> per-connection. They are time-based instead and thus if you make >> connections during a certain bucket of time they all are coming at the >> same time. >> > I don't believe this is a "MUST", though I agree that concurrent use of > multiple IPv6 addresses is not quite in the spirit of rfc4941. Ack. > I'm back to my earlier point: privacy addresses are like private browsing: > imperfect, possibly even to the point of being misleading, but worth > having. IMHO they are very misleading. In 2001 when they where 'invented' it was reasonable to call them 'privacy'. In 2013 far from with all the things learned and tech that has evolved. > I've been watching your [that is, Jeroen Massar's] _How the Internet > Sees You_ > presentation, but I am not (yet) convinced that privacy addresses > have no value in any circumstances. Trust me, they do not have any value whatsoever. The above suggestion about an IP per connection/app would only allow the adversary to count how many connections you made or how many apps you have running on your host. And thus make it easier to figure out which one of many you are. Yes, it would explode the database a bit, but wh00p, big-data is definitely there in 2013. Greets, Jeroen -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBD2MR4H64QDBBS77YOJQKGQE7GDH3KY@cs.luc.edu Wed Oct 30 07:47:08 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-ie0-f199.google.com (mail-ie0-f199.google.com [209.85.223.199]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E20C817DFE for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 07:47:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f199.google.com with SMTP id qd12sf3721633ieb.6 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 05:47:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-transfer-encoding :content-type; bh=FzuXEms6YyFgm8wUENG1fCacE6EOKD6wD/f79B1jyds=; b=ff/HLR06uj/vi2f7esANgBr7kzLqDWq6rFqf3qV0OCbHHyNC9EM3znv3bscm2ctu5n evzNLIm2Sz9TUSc0xQ11b4PRMwXpzGeCSAIwIVjpK0rmdG46qgsbY0I5m3LWR98xtAa6 lRG++FY72OK0nWgfju1jEOCvA8Czix1EuzEdfmwo97GaSyqaEZZbZZnHO/gW1KQmbb1n svH6kPrVRx98Ef+HYdHgBF3K6vHDMgbGM5Yz9/Uk7NAtk2oZM5EEZ4zlmxFHW+qrQqx6 4a7OxPXVLb5KfQsQXHzWu53MARH8B5HZGj8YGu8yvQ8wnuodfqf060VKUaLSywYIdajf LJJQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk+cpsmRALiGpDAqsVIkmb8wxk3/U2Bbx1Y5Hkd8l1Yme8vNkBNpZdjwT20AUkmNj0pQClB X-Received: by 10.182.241.129 with SMTP id wi1mr1853440obc.10.1383137227630; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 05:47:07 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.57.41 with SMTP id f9ls2855880igq.28.canary; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 05:47:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.42.142.129 with SMTP id s1mr3141388icu.30.1383137227452; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 05:47:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-f200.google.com (mail-ie0-f200.google.com [209.85.223.200]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id nv2si4044330igb.70.2013.10.30.05.47.07 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Oct 2013 05:47:07 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBD2MR4H64QDBBSX7YOJQKGQEGOKOH2Q@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-ie0-f200.google.com with SMTP id aq17sf3714506iec.3 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 05:47:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.42.98.76 with SMTP id r12mr1558537icn.7.1383137226940; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 05:47:06 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.117.5 with SMTP id ka5ls702099igb.26.gmail; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 05:47:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.136.167 with SMTP id qb7mr2950041pab.43.1383137226727; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 05:47:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id ud7si1848622pac.120.2013.10.30.05.47.06 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 05:47:06 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCDF011E8171; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 05:47:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89CD311E8196 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 05:47:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qcad-aLFWF-0 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 05:46:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B036411E818F for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 05:46:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 946661C0467; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 05:46:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (unknown [192.165.183.201]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BB83D1C0555; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 05:46:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5270FFBD.7010206@joelhalpern.com> Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:46:53 -0400 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lorenzo Colitti Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526D3706.5070409@alvarezp.ods.org> <526E43E8.3080601@gmail.com> <526E91A3.8000807@alvarezp.ods.org> <526F888E.20609@gmail.com> <52702A06.2040102@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AF4FE@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> In-Reply-To: Cc: 6man X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: jmh@joelhalpern.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBD2MR4H64QDBBSX7YOJQKGQEGOKOH2Q@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBD2MR4H64QDBBSX7YOJQKGQEGOKOH2Q@math.luc.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" X-UID: 51 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 1243 And we do have classless aggregation and delegation within the upper 64 bits. Yours, Joel On 10/30/13 8:27 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 6:54 AM, Manfredi, Albert E > > wrote: > > CIDR evolved for a reason: the old 32-bit classful scheme became > inadequate when the Internet moved from an academic/military net of > a few 10s of thousands, to something for the masses. > > > Yes, CIDR evolved for a reason: we were running out of IPv4 address space. > > We don't have that problem in IPv6 at the moment, and various people > have gone through the math showing that we won't have that problem for > decades. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCOYDX7L4IHBBMMQZOJQKGQEGRMUVXY@cs.luc.edu Thu Oct 31 16:14:26 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-pb0-f69.google.com (mail-pb0-f69.google.com [209.85.160.69]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A945818FB4 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:14:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-pb0-f69.google.com with SMTP id md4sf5776698pbc.8 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:14:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:from:to:subject:thread-topic :thread-index:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :mime-version:cc:precedence:list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive :list-post:list-help:list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :content-language:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kIafxDhKY0oW5k4kw+O6BYjdKucYnGll0gzRD5Dx0hY=; b=OZ13IdGCzQwrotJrWikGW6iE+6r8NQOywpS2k0kUcvNg71jIYTnqBQAwkl7Youv4MV z2OA5RNV8SUX8yWncKlbSFKExjiPtUcEqF/pr5NTRKJpjSLn1ut8ZZZK89DBL0e2QxJ8 DlwKI03KM6SCAmYDGR9tYzehajzDvB0vHNaQ1kfuwCNuWNWHESylzkQn/6GzQFomkvhL 9KtkbWY+5mmJbeZbp0YfQ6piWKvvPJ284zwtwujctVlBah+P0Hx80n4QUsGMNGva8c7X 3I8bphlEM7JfokAgREEQUUT9oAHpQOzXRAEY3FQAjwDjNjtO+iaejUnRbX5PGuRy4Pok s/Vg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn5K+o/sNmrSc3pxHmOHuGbB3OL+GZ8yJPJn93qltw95C00yuMVB1vLmLYBPe/lufKoPu2e X-Received: by 10.66.221.137 with SMTP id qe9mr2147481pac.4.1383254065674; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:14:25 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.182.24.132 with SMTP id u4ls729719obf.40.gmail; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:14:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.60.36.133 with SMTP id q5mr3921817oej.63.1383254065526; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:14:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-f72.google.com (mail-oa0-f72.google.com [209.85.219.72]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u3si3175346oev.107.2013.10.31.14.14.25 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:14:25 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCOYDX7L4IHBBMMQZOJQKGQE7XFQUCI@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-oa0-f72.google.com with SMTP id m17sf10661489oag.11 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:14:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.42.84.136 with SMTP id m8mr1597214icl.9.1383254065075; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:14:25 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.8.39 with SMTP id o7ls152207iga.28.gmail; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:14:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.141.73 with SMTP id rm9mr4020516pab.167.1383254064886; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:14:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id js8si2918069pbc.104.2013.10.31.14.14.24 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:14:24 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 831B621E80C6; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:14:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CC6B21E80CE for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:14:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6O9s7JNGQ6MN for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:14:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com (stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com [130.76.96.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D423521E80FF for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:14:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id r9VLEE1j020908 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:14:15 -0500 Received: from XCH-PHX-106.sw.nos.boeing.com (xch-phx-106.sw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.238.9]) by stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id r9VLEDx7020872 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:14:14 -0500 Received: from XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.6.120]) by XCH-PHX-106.sw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.3.217]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:14:14 -0700 From: "Manfredi, Albert E" To: Erik Kline Subject: RE: Why /64 Thread-Topic: Why /64 Thread-Index: AQHO1evCP1peZUHD+EaY3A+mPyO0EZoOw+iAgAD/+wD//4t9kA== Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 21:14:13 +0000 Message-ID: <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFB99@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526D3706.5070409@alvarezp.ods.org> <526E43E8.3080601@gmail.com> <526E91A3.8000807@alvarezp.ods.org> <526F888E.20609@gmail.com> <52702A06.2040102@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AF4FE@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <52717006.5000806@gmail.com> <5271EFCF.6000101@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-MML: disable Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCOYDX7L4IHBBMMQZOJQKGQE7XFQUCI@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBCOYDX7L4IHBBMMQZOJQKGQE7XFQUCI@math.luc.edu Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 52 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 1033 > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Erik > Kline > Sounds like you need a problem statement draft, since subtending a /64 > network is not necessarily trivial (even if you can do autoconf for > something like a /80), i.e. you have routing issues to solve as well. What routing issues? I'm curious. If a residence, or an automobile, is assigned a /64, presumably any routing from the WAN will be aggregated to that home or vehicle already. Then inside, your gateway takes care of the rest, no? I think any prediction that 64-bit prefixes are the most we could ever want "for decades to come" is only as good as the assumptions made to reach that predictions. These assumptions are notoriously poor. Bert -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCOYDX7L4IHBBCEVZOJQKGQEXXINNMQ@cs.luc.edu Thu Oct 31 16:24:25 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-gg0-f197.google.com (mail-gg0-f197.google.com [209.85.161.197]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A4DD18FB4 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:24:25 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-gg0-f197.google.com with SMTP id r5sf4814130gga.4 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:24:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:from:to:subject:thread-topic :thread-index:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :mime-version:cc:precedence:list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive :list-post:list-help:list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :content-language:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JAsLwp2Nk6bLVZUzvcHe0EeRw1+0mWVG4+yB/0jdSTk=; b=WMqdBloPg2Df1o9J3mz5haybq//ywnzZUL2iQrF/YuarfRT1vaWoQd2ShhdbNj0MYr 9m2yxA3XqBRcqO/qOb3ApKQZ7/YKALbnpqbE9SW+tanoFim42lSPUAiqCjemjzwvvvMX 0wkdfPgJ28ZgtnLeS6zq8aaN2GmNg8MfDIqp7n2WRRznigbaZk6Vks7fW/ygBikbARVm MOl0okjrWVxiDJWcjAlVQ7EIdM5I32FZKes1SRFuzojAHF1ypxexrm8cLY27Uat/pDLr fnuqcehyAZm5OoEyPh6OmAecsu26GmdKM7qZoNSvK1tG//atB5fsBuzKnkZW5jqexAGj 9afg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmYXuoF4qMI2K1KQIwpSEUF2hto7PelFR+sPGNKtSAUaB252OcpseWmrdtOpLThl3h8Fola X-Received: by 10.58.187.197 with SMTP id fu5mr64093vec.34.1383254664578; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:24:24 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.49.59.36 with SMTP id w4ls1132463qeq.67.gmail; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:24:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.62.167 with SMTP id z7mr1876094qer.67.1383254664425; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:24:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-f199.google.com (mail-qc0-f199.google.com [209.85.216.199]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k5si2270304qen.50.2013.10.31.14.24.24 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:24:24 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCOYDX7L4IHBBB4VZOJQKGQE45KRQQY@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-qc0-f199.google.com with SMTP id q4sf6438518qcx.10 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:24:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.58.137.135 with SMTP id qi7mr34096veb.25.1383254663831; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:24:23 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.225.6 with SMTP id rg6ls161833igc.25.gmail; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:24:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.67.1.203 with SMTP id bi11mr4087748pad.137.1383254663587; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:24:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id gn4si2941295pbc.51.2013.10.31.14.24.23 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:24:23 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 155C811E8110; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:24:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1122E11E8256 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:24:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 08E+1vFNE12v for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:24:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com (slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com [130.76.64.129]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A170111E8110 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:24:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id r9VLOD1D012994 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:24:13 -0700 Received: from XCH-PHX-501.sw.nos.boeing.com (xch-phx-501.sw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.239.53]) by slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id r9VLOC7V012989 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:24:12 -0700 Received: from XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.6.120]) by XCH-PHX-501.sw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.8.198]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:24:12 -0700 From: "Manfredi, Albert E" To: Erik Kline Subject: RE: Why /64 Thread-Topic: Why /64 Thread-Index: AQHO1evCP1peZUHD+EaY3A+mPyO0EZoOw+iAgAD/+wD//4t9kIAAd/UA//+K4OA= Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 21:24:12 +0000 Message-ID: <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFBC7@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526D3706.5070409@alvarezp.ods.org> <526E43E8.3080601@gmail.com> <526E91A3.8000807@alvarezp.ods.org> <526F888E.20609@gmail.com> <52702A06.2040102@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AF4FE@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <52717006.5000806@gmail.com> <5271EFCF.6000101@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFB99@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-MML: disable Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCOYDX7L4IHBBB4VZOJQKGQE45KRQQY@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBCOYDX7L4IHBBB4VZOJQKGQE45KRQQY@math.luc.edu Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 53 Status: RO X-Keywords: $label4 Content-Length: 1252 > From: Erik Kline [mailto:ek@google.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 5:20 PM > To: Manfredi, Albert E > Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List > Subject: Re: Why /64 > > > If a residence, or an automobile, is assigned a /64, presumably any routing > from the WAN will be aggregated to that home or vehicle already. Then inside, > your gateway takes care of the rest, no? > > No gateway currently does this, i.e. it will not "just work" today. > > Furthermore, I would argue that no home gateway currently expects that > it should do this, since it hasn't been documented as a requirement. > > That's the kind of stuff to which I was referring. Understood. And I find this troubling and unnecessary. That's my point. We have this huge 128-bit address space, and we are putting ourselves in a position where we actually only have maybe 48 or at most 56 bits of "distribution potential," meaning "to different sites." Where IPv4 with CIDR has essentially 32. How come this isn't troubling? Bert -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCOYDX7L4IHBBXNIZOJQKGQEEM4EHFQ@cs.luc.edu Thu Oct 31 17:06:22 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-yh0-f72.google.com (mail-yh0-f72.google.com [209.85.213.72]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8E4F18FB3 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:06:21 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-yh0-f72.google.com with SMTP id z20sf7224229yhz.3 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:06:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:from:to:subject:thread-topic :thread-index:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :mime-version:cc:precedence:list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive :list-post:list-help:list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :content-language:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=j3ihBm0UX5jVZ3h04OOfY0gXsBfQn9qmid9hu9SjVXU=; b=JAgL0jvqI4eTCXJtAZlQIPoNczrikHjxVsiaK8p943/bEW88ByPZlZubYIV0ejkC22 lV/BKX6v4u/CL5h3lpWlTd3QESchYPEZojGdaTo74xg37jawxRlhwDAw26fDY7/2UC2Z EUoZSuz64jrcLFuGvcEqayapbl/y9ZGjRAs+D9P6GCavpotYJsdsYzGQa1gR5BOc0XZ1 AEXFfokiRepCXQnrOGc8Wh2wkUDO6HISNaMgQMEOMgx+vpfA7neU0kpfevXJlj5TiowR 2iyH6MCASROwO2OSNYTpLGmNW04/nRU4JTJ2L+HPCslRtc3QY/EjpINd8tfLsl4IC3PL Uvbw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnx0Gz1j95g5ORykugxDD7a6tCKnC7CRDGEHTtNrH7WpXdtpjDy81jv3TFisD8Tbm2xd0GB X-Received: by 10.58.50.161 with SMTP id d1mr119784veo.24.1383257181395; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:06:21 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.182.22.200 with SMTP id g8ls735890obf.30.gmail; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:06:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.243.138 with SMTP id wy10mr1835667obc.83.1383257181224; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:06:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-f71.google.com (mail-oa0-f71.google.com [209.85.219.71]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q1si3263888oev.10.2013.10.31.15.06.20 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:06:20 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCOYDX7L4IHBBXFIZOJQKGQEO7FHATI@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-oa0-f71.google.com with SMTP id j6sf10782856oag.2 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:06:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.241.129 with SMTP id wi1mr1830978obc.10.1383257180409; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:06:20 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.43.164 with SMTP id x4ls167235igl.13.canary; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:06:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.182.36 with SMTP id eb4mr4109019pac.125.1383257180186; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:06:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id tu7si1228809pab.133.2013.10.31.15.06.19 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:06:20 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2525811E8178; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:06:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3911021F9C99 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:06:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d9MNIGfXO1qU for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:06:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com (slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com [130.76.64.129]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A49011E8178 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:06:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id r9VM61Uu004138 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:06:02 -0700 Received: from XCH-PHX-407.sw.nos.boeing.com (xch-phx-407.sw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.239.48]) by slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id r9VM61Us004128 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:06:01 -0700 Received: from XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.6.120]) by XCH-PHX-407.sw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.3.233]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:06:01 -0700 From: "Manfredi, Albert E" To: Brian E Carpenter Subject: RE: Why /64 Thread-Topic: Why /64 Thread-Index: AQHO1evCP1peZUHD+EaY3A+mPyO0EZoOw+iAgAD/+wD//4t9kIAAd/UA//+K4OCAAH2vAP//jGqQ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 22:06:00 +0000 Message-ID: <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFC01@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526D3706.5070409@alvarezp.ods.org> <526E43E8.3080601@gmail.com> <526E91A3.8000807@alvarezp.ods.org> <526F888E.20609@gmail.com> <52702A06.2040102@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AF4FE@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <52717006.5000806@gmail.com> <5271EFCF.6000101@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFB99@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFBC7@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <5272D09C.8040909@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5272D09C.8040909@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-MML: disable Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCOYDX7L4IHBBXFIZOJQKGQEO7FHATI@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBCOYDX7L4IHBBXFIZOJQKGQEO7FHATI@math.luc.edu Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 54 Status: RO X-Keywords: $label4 Content-Length: 927 > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com] > Because there are trillions of /48s. And we think that is way more than adequate, today. Until the paradigm changes, and every vehicle, every street, every building, every person, will need its own internal subnet structure. For things like vehicle-to-infrastructure comms, vehicle-to-vehicle comms, internal vehicle controls and diagnostics (separated into multiple subsystems of course), wearable medical sensors, and who knows what else. And space. I'm just saying, classful IPv4 also seemed like plenty at first. It was a mere decade before we knew differently. Bert -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBDBK3NO2UQLRBI5SZOJQKGQE765MITA@cs.luc.edu Thu Oct 31 17:26:43 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-oa0-f72.google.com (mail-oa0-f72.google.com [209.85.219.72]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F12318FB3 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:26:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-oa0-f72.google.com with SMTP id m17sf10898016oag.11 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:26:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:from:to:subject:thread-topic :thread-index:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :mime-version:precedence:list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive :list-post:list-help:list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :content-language:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=11ARxnfeIe3IDjJ4KqjAs+XZ9PR+l+TbAZyDSvztw+k=; b=KDgqjgDDcuUYj4CqRCSdB3iJhSA4bypxZePK8G3e2Cu2XSU1mlOxjH0lDaIJOO7LMa P4r/I557JkGF3vOgX38WoeJvkt6Y8KIaBpjLuJbmLAq4l5s0TLffh1wu0EVXg+09qYQZ irfotEeT49f43k4CjZCeK4n8lZgVwwuBr5r4PJZqjxKyXzOrKOZ+875L36p+0nhsofWQ PvETyBieeI3sst7jK5dtXpG0g5a17/txZcrTCTuvYuCUoyDErpy0JchZ7Hd9EfM92xG1 N+g+xF6FZG/B140ACp01fk7552Tsj01UN4OO4k0R5hCvyO11I3PUGjypZkWnUy5IF1d4 sV1w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkajVGH0RsUhEXvbvGRJkKBstUfPuIv7ZmThZuvQvcgkaXI5aBrwggNR0zDsXt+UZNhZVNm X-Received: by 10.182.66.137 with SMTP id f9mr4235obt.3.1383258403016; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:26:43 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.182.129.196 with SMTP id ny4ls772279obb.6.gmail; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:26:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.233.228 with SMTP id tz4mr9763obc.56.1383258402896; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:26:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-f70.google.com (mail-oa0-f70.google.com [209.85.219.70]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id kz4si3266127oeb.90.2013.10.31.15.26.42 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:26:42 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDBK3NO2UQLRBIVSZOJQKGQEZBRUAIY@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-oa0-f70.google.com with SMTP id j10sf10864776oah.9 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:26:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.43.151.16 with SMTP id kq16mr2893icc.22.1383258402383; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:26:42 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.93.4 with SMTP id cq4ls172026igb.17.gmail; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:26:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.121.164 with SMTP id ll4mr13285pab.48.1383258402244; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:26:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id hi3si3027565pbb.123.2013.10.31.15.26.42 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:26:42 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7C1621F9DDE; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:26:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2CCC11E8243 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:26:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D5C7nJXMexoq for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:26:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com (stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com [130.76.96.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8219D11E8182 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:26:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id r9VMQJZT003273 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:26:19 -0500 Received: from XCH-NWHT-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-11.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.114]) by stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id r9VMQIwf003248 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:26:18 -0500 Received: from XCH-BLV-302.nw.nos.boeing.com (130.247.25.214) by XCH-NWHT-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (130.247.25.114) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.327.1; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:26:18 -0700 Received: from XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.4.85]) by XCH-BLV-302.nw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.2.227]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:26:18 -0700 From: "Templin, Fred L" To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List Subject: RE: Why /64 Thread-Topic: Why /64 Thread-Index: AQHO1oNBhA9VOxeEw02Oq+EmllMqyJoPYBSQ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 22:26:17 +0000 Message-ID: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D98318145077@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526D3706.5070409@alvarezp.ods.org> <526E43E8.3080601@gmail.com> <526E91A3.8000807@alvarezp.ods.org> <526F888E.20609@gmail.com> <52702A06.2040102@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AF4FE@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <52717006.5000806@gmail.com> <5271EFCF.6000101@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFB99@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFBC7@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <5272D09C.8040909@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5272D09C.8040909@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [130.247.104.6] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: fred.l.templin@boeing.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDBK3NO2UQLRBIVSZOJQKGQEZBRUAIY@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBDBK3NO2UQLRBIVSZOJQKGQEZBRUAIY@math.luc.edu Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 55 Status: RO X-Keywords: $label1 Content-Length: 1374 Hi, I have a whacky idea on why /64 is already a good number. Routers on a link are identified by their link-local address; always beginning with fe80. But, the interface identifier bits are essentially wasted by including the EUI-64 encoding of the MAC address while the MAC address is already available in the L2 header. But, since we delegate routable IPv6 prefixes to routers, why not include the IPv6 prefix in the router's link-local IPv6 address? For example, suppose the prefix 2001:db8:foo:baa::/64 were delegated to a router then the router could configure the IPv6 link-local address "fe80::2001:db8:foo:baa". This then provides a useful router ID to other nodes on the link so that the prefixes reachable through the router can be gleaned by looking at the 64-bit interface identifier. It would then be a configuration option on a link-by-link basis as to whether the link supports this new "IPv6 prefix embedded link local address" format. Then, legacy links can continue to use good old EUI-64-based link-locals and new links can use this new format. Just a thought. Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBDNZ3IMM3YIRB3VWZOJQKGQEL2OPIDY@cs.luc.edu Thu Oct 31 17:36:31 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-ve0-f199.google.com (mail-ve0-f199.google.com [209.85.128.199]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0C6B18FB3 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:36:30 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-ve0-f199.google.com with SMTP id pa12sf7463119veb.10 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:36:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:to:from:references:subject :in-reply-to:date:message-id:cc:precedence:list-id:list-unsubscribe :list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe:mime-version:sender :errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=P49kCxS94QCYLEZPj138OUde7byCKFEK0T7BresouM4=; b=lb7BTv4Hadc5pwkAYqJRLVXa1HovgfJ5kGb5h9qzTBvGXs5QGZpMZnUKZ3HMALpW57 9C3Nu+Om2JyocANzz1KVrZK0HOqlUmPpoH6L7870bNprh9WNeln3kYAmEuG4kpQfN3DQ UpDl03pib6wxU1hLE1kkQfhhhtb3Cfpv0fb/BFOrd2IB5vfPHlVOhEGsemJiZxj4Ixas 4/e4Atrc0CR8CZXFQvkIjgxvjdxvpkiX22/9jVg0au0DOCYdG1OWhsW6ZcSvOw42gdNf jpyvze9xE4mY1Bb3OnTYvCXpJqaWNfR0LwOF+dfkMDw7CggQBLZP61uBpbQZ5bIKfN3j COzQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlk48indWPy83EArjph/X7h16Qox52Tbih1MQYcUAcMO6Y3lU0imbeZKWjdmrZgIPa91g3T X-Received: by 10.58.109.226 with SMTP id hv2mr13514veb.33.1383258990521; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:36:30 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.49.105.34 with SMTP id gj2ls1139192qeb.52.gmail; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:36:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.224.88.193 with SMTP id b1mr46079qam.81.1383258990343; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:36:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-f72.google.com (mail-qa0-f72.google.com [209.85.216.72]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id by3si1053058qcb.0.2013.10.31.15.36.30 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:36:30 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDNZ3IMM3YIRB3VWZOJQKGQE4RAGZWI@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-qa0-f72.google.com with SMTP id j15sf638714qaq.3 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:36:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.236.14.100 with SMTP id c64mr22519yhc.38.1383258990225; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:36:30 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.239.165 with SMTP id vt5ls179460igc.6.gmail; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:36:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.203.73 with SMTP id ko9mr39710pbc.170.1383258990002; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:36:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id z1si3024400pbw.249.2013.10.31.15.36.29 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:36:29 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E25A011E81E2; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:36:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B8C311E81E2 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:36:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JkVw5etfV0Rq for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:36:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [199.6.1.65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3281111E8254 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:36:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB5082383DA; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 22:35:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org) Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0FA0160482; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 22:41:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c211-30-183-50.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.183.50]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A08BB160459; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 22:41:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FA479651F2; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 09:35:52 +1100 (EST) To: "Manfredi, Albert E" From: Mark Andrews References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526D3706.5070409@alvarezp.ods.org> <526E43E8.3080601@gmail.com> <526E91A3.8000807@alvarezp.ods.org> <526F888E.20609@gmail.com> <52702A06.2040102@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AF4FE@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <52717006.5000806@gmail.com> <5271EFCF.6000101@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFB99@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFBC7@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <5272D09C.8040909@ gmail.co m> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFC01@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> Subject: Re: Why /64 In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 31 Oct 2013 22:06:00 -0000." <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFC01@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 09:35:52 +1100 Message-Id: <20131031223552.7FA479651F2@rock.dv.isc.org> Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: marka@isc.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDNZ3IMM3YIRB3VWZOJQKGQE4RAGZWI@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBDNZ3IMM3YIRB3VWZOJQKGQE4RAGZWI@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 56 Status: RO X-Keywords: $label1 Content-Length: 1883 In message <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFC01@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com>, "Manfredi, Albert E" writes: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com] > > > Because there are trillions of /48s. > > And we think that is way more than adequate, today. Until the paradigm changes, and every vehicle, every street, e > very building, every person, will need its own internal subnet structure. For things like vehicle-to-infrastructur > e comms, vehicle-to-vehicle comms, internal vehicle controls and diagnostics (separated into multiple subsystems o > f course), wearable medical sensors, and who knows what else. And space. > > I'm just saying, classful IPv4 also seemed like plenty at first. It was a mere decade before we knew differently. No classful IPv4 was *known* to not scale from the very beginning. There are 72057594037927936 /56's which are what most ISP are planning to hand out to residential customers. If you really want to be miserly you can request /64's on a needs basis with PD which is what internal home routers will need to do so the code to support this will exist if we ever need to got to that level when talking to ISP's. > Bert > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBDNZ3IMM3YIRBZ7QZOJQKGQEBR3Z3OA@cs.luc.edu Thu Oct 31 19:40:07 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-qe0-f72.google.com (mail-qe0-f72.google.com [209.85.128.72]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACBA218FAA for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:40:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-qe0-f72.google.com with SMTP id b4sf7250906qen.11 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:40:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:to:from:references:subject :in-reply-to:date:message-id:cc:precedence:list-id:list-unsubscribe :list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe:mime-version:sender :errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=XAKWG6cnNC0LQOMt3/62TgOXjbcEAXYVs/Ln7CQ54qg=; b=RsAvPF7pwZgFpsGJm/dAtTxSXpSs+JmOVgpMhex8OZFTCFgLBoRnEbM0mOB/iIvzFm IYrFOOac0PJXkUrA8gQeei5+YANPUsccps6Pjztn+DqF46SkCg/emfB9wGNApLYztu9C 5P2t4R8YmWI09DYq213X8hIkZpnOpOsAnbhgsSPQzYFTweNXlxq1cUinWzdcUmSOz3WS KHuHBaxiysISRcJ1LdZ4+Wp/+85dr3ReCrTH1FdjHQMFJ+XJ0jgGLtGBQYOkT0EIpfjD DNSfUQVC04xG2YdtzhP5wQcpfTzas/m6wv3c5jEEaZ/UHnf5JL34xQUJDrWaHCQGPws7 s64A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnc6PfMa2sCQddGCWFi7QhpLfkS+pCwsUjkmU/fsMu6HKkEYPCUvTgr8MLcZJIf1Zc1i4jE X-Received: by 10.236.101.103 with SMTP id a67mr211111yhg.25.1383266407127; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:40:07 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.49.74.198 with SMTP id w6ls1178111qev.9.gmail; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:40:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.58.161.231 with SMTP id xv7mr201421veb.2.1383266406986; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:40:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ve0-f200.google.com (mail-ve0-f200.google.com [209.85.128.200]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o6si1432198vcz.79.2013.10.31.17.40.06 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:40:06 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDNZ3IMM3YIRBZXQZOJQKGQEXCOWKTY@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-ve0-f200.google.com with SMTP id cz12sf7703392veb.3 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:40:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.236.17.161 with SMTP id j21mr226061yhj.55.1383266406326; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:40:06 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.77.108 with SMTP id r12ls239245igw.24.gmail; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:40:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.140.40 with SMTP id rd8mr411020pab.119.1383266406128; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:40:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id je1si3213123pbb.210.2013.10.31.17.40.06 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:40:06 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3A8211E8152; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:40:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84D5811E8277 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:40:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q-8UkIgwdgcN for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:39:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [199.6.1.65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12D0911E827B for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:39:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 912E92383E0; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 00:39:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org) Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3A0C160470; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 00:44:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c211-30-183-50.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.183.50]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B2348160459; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 00:44:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A95A1966953; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 11:39:00 +1100 (EST) To: "Manfredi, Albert E" From: Mark Andrews References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526D3706.5070409@alvarezp.ods.org> <526E43E8.3080601@gmail.com> <526E91A3.8000807@alvarezp.ods.org> <526F888E.20609@gmail.com> <52702A06.2040102@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AF4FE@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <52717006.5000806@gmail.com> <5271EFCF.6000101@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFB99@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFBC7@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> Subject: Re: Why /64 In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 31 Oct 2013 21:24:12 -0000." <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFBC7@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 11:39:00 +1100 Message-Id: <20131101003900.A95A1966953@rock.dv.isc.org> Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: marka@isc.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDNZ3IMM3YIRBZXQZOJQKGQEXCOWKTY@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBDNZ3IMM3YIRBZXQZOJQKGQEXCOWKTY@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 57 Status: RO X-Keywords: $label1 Content-Length: 1945 In message <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFBC7@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing. com>, "Manfredi, Albert E" writes: > > From: Erik Kline [mailto:ek@google.com] > > Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 5:20 PM > > To: Manfredi, Albert E > > Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List > > Subject: Re: Why /64 > > > > > If a residence, or an automobile, is assigned a /64, presumably any routi > ng > > from the WAN will be aggregated to that home or vehicle already. Then insid > e, > > your gateway takes care of the rest, no? > > > > No gateway currently does this, i.e. it will not "just work" today. > > > > Furthermore, I would argue that no home gateway currently expects that > > it should do this, since it hasn't been documented as a requirement. > > > > That's the kind of stuff to which I was referring. > > Understood. And I find this troubling and unnecessary. That's my point. We ha > ve this huge 128-bit address space, and we are putting ourselves in a positio > n where we actually only have maybe 48 or at most 56 bits of "distribution po > tential," meaning "to different sites." Where IPv4 with CIDR has essentially > 32. How come this isn't troubling? Because at 20 billion people you have 3 million networks per person with /56's. (2^56)/(2*10^10) = 3602879 Mark > Bert > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCOYDX7L4IHBBA72ZOJQKGQEAPVPK7Q@cs.luc.edu Thu Oct 31 19:59:47 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-ie0-f200.google.com (mail-ie0-f200.google.com [209.85.223.200]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B94C318FAA for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:59:47 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f200.google.com with SMTP id aq17sf10546351iec.11 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:59:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:from:to:subject:thread-topic :thread-index:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :mime-version:cc:precedence:list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive :list-post:list-help:list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :content-language:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wHrUWAzNuYCSGBK8ynuU5iDzHQ2tLxJojw4wBt5lKOM=; b=WFFAddrvxjfIIjaSpe2O7Yx5nbjRseQ1XK5QwO3zYIXykVi6EKrOyqU/r0B+46DhRC UZIX8NSwIpRQPvY6ly1uJqMYHN1WPcZfD4fe50viszUkP9eomhTuDliyJmQRJVLIgA03 dBlsTPsTMlCu91wWCikEfDeio3uBZmYlGpUriRQMRf5WI+Ra3LeiX3jAjNvpBwB+e0p3 1zI+wbfEIFMueeAmFbVH3/pBXlkoU6EQ/YfCO2MfAfwX08yieraM6rCJvYOVvzsy82to jfaHI9z6UfD/uFJ4MjnG7swDkkzRvOlCg56CxIQhvhcXwbj6yCf1LJxAGm51DrT0ZV69 qlBA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnNbLINSdbG/+f5/8bB73RzNlTaoke0W5hHCl1b4sdq65zm8pGbL1vp8PQ15e0iD/lUW77v X-Received: by 10.50.110.10 with SMTP id hw10mr195305igb.4.1383267587398; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:59:47 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.136.198 with SMTP id qc6ls217059igb.42.canary; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:59:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.130.234 with SMTP id oh10mr503678pbb.0.1383267587220; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:59:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f72.google.com (mail-pb0-f72.google.com [209.85.160.72]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ru9si3262723pbc.78.2013.10.31.17.59.46 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:59:46 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCOYDX7L4IHBBAX2ZOJQKGQELPBQKKI@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-pb0-f72.google.com with SMTP id jt11sf6113815pbb.7 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:59:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.189.163 with SMTP id gj3mr190504pac.32.1383267586752; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:59:46 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.154.74 with SMTP id vm10ls211339igb.4.gmail; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:59:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.212.102 with SMTP id nj6mr489097pbc.160.1383267586519; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:59:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id ud7si3570146pac.149.2013.10.31.17.59.46 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:59:46 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E691A21E813A; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:59:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 029FE21E8141 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:59:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pIWWOK8oTxqb for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:59:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blv-mbsout-01.boeing.com (blv-mbsout-01.boeing.com [130.76.32.231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7CD821E813F for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:59:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blv-mbsout-01.boeing.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by blv-mbsout-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id rA10xO3g009356 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:59:24 -0700 Received: from XCH-PHX-502.sw.nos.boeing.com (xch-phx-502.sw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.239.55]) by blv-mbsout-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id rA10xNZ7009352 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:59:24 -0700 Received: from XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.6.120]) by XCH-PHX-502.sw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.7.227]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:59:23 -0700 From: "Manfredi, Albert E" To: Mark Andrews Subject: RE: Why /64 Thread-Topic: Why /64 Thread-Index: AQHO1evCP1peZUHD+EaY3A+mPyO0EZoOw+iAgAD/+wD//4t9kIAAd/UA//+K4OCAADe2nYAAANew Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 00:59:22 +0000 Message-ID: <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFCAF@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526D3706.5070409@alvarezp.ods.org> <526E43E8.3080601@gmail.com> <526E91A3.8000807@alvarezp.ods.org> <526F888E.20609@gmail.com> <52702A06.2040102@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AF4FE@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <52717006.5000806@gmail.com> <5271EFCF.6000101@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFB99@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFBC7@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <20131101003900.A95A1966953@rock.dv.isc.org> In-Reply-To: <20131101003900.A95A1966953@rock.dv.isc.org> Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-MML: disable Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCOYDX7L4IHBBAX2ZOJQKGQELPBQKKI@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBCOYDX7L4IHBBAX2ZOJQKGQELPBQKKI@math.luc.edu Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 58 Status: RO X-Keywords: $label4 Content-Length: 1155 > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Andrews [mailto:marka@isc.org] > Because at 20 billion people you have 3 million networks per person with > /56's. > > (2^56)/(2*10^10) = 3602879 But this continues to miss the point. It used to be mainframes at organizations. Then it became PCs in homes and offices. Then it became PCs and cell phones and tablets and printers and scanners and ... Now think of beacons at road edges, potholes, road signals, street lights, crosswalks, yield signs, lane merge, nature trail, bike path, shipping lane, buoys, and so on, in addition to what you might have now associated with people, homes, offices. It's not just associated with people anymore. All of these need organizational networks. Not all of these networks need anywhere close to 2^64 hosts apiece. Why would you need 2^64 IIDs for a subnet of neighborhood streetlights, for instance? Bert -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCC77QGWVMIRBJH2ZOJQKGQEDKZW3TY@cs.luc.edu Thu Oct 31 20:00:21 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-vb0-f71.google.com (mail-vb0-f71.google.com [209.85.212.71]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 275AD18FAA for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 20:00:21 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f71.google.com with SMTP id i3sf5414346vbh.10 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:00:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:organization :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=YIAXNrSCPAg2d3Oz9dawDmsOhb+mO3rWB5hZcB9P5d0=; b=f9+E/c7GbN0fenjcJ6wBufDIyftE1ONzQQCI/Hp9F+T8r5n6r03VtPLlhBpeMsG8BT NXCtHiNzlEUsmNaWALXLFdd7wlxacu3aEmGhAihp6Asqv5MqbbKj3W5dpkLBiqEXc8xY HtJf6t+YtC+NRzO89A0adtuFBzznqmJWcSqeddOpcGhgOayy2XkQQWEyaKmmXjfCQCL/ 9z9dnSbXo/U2+eIuTOnfoMUbi1GfCvJfdAd+eyhtAZsB+9zlUAt7d+k8Rn6994PSE7rv nqFxkN20eqmnCAhQp5GEUGOg0zH44JbsI7co+0Sv76IB5dvuqIdr7VUC7F30xkHqCHKe 1ctg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkQIqloRNYyeXYAIinNGM2S040RWHI2PrY9Jb+zjaff+yGyERGSFJR730QI8IGVww5lFa02 X-Received: by 10.52.109.164 with SMTP id ht4mr167463vdb.8.1383267620651; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:00:20 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.66.134 with SMTP id f6ls79646igt.41.canary; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:00:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.153.50 with SMTP id vd18mr586345igb.6.1383267620480; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:00:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-f199.google.com (mail-ie0-f199.google.com [209.85.223.199]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b10si6415533icq.14.2013.10.31.18.00.19 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:00:19 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBI72ZOJQKGQE7M63BAI@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-ie0-f199.google.com with SMTP id qd12sf10540011ieb.10 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:00:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.42.53.212 with SMTP id o20mr170450icg.6.1383267619627; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:00:19 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.93.4 with SMTP id cq4ls213615igb.17.gmail; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:00:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.225.164 with SMTP id rl4mr502536pbc.100.1383267619452; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:00:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id sd2si3258413pbb.109.2013.10.31.18.00.19 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:00:19 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0255C21E8143; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:00:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FDD421E8142 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:00:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UVq07EbakkXB for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:00:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from icaras.de.unfix.org (icaras.de.unfix.org [IPv6:2a01:4f8:130:74c1:5054:ff:fec4:f7d4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B077821E8140 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:59:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kami.ch.unfix.org (84-73-144-213.dclient.hispeed.ch [84.73.144.213]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by icaras.de.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2AC64801C2A2; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 01:59:51 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <5272FD0D.9060705@massar.ch> Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 01:59:57 +0100 From: Jeroen Massar Organization: Massar MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter , "Manfredi, Albert E" Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526D3706.5070409@alvarezp.ods.org> <526E43E8.3080601@gmail.com> <526E91A3.8000807@alvarezp.ods.org> <526F888E.20609@gmail.com> <52702A06.2040102@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AF4FE@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <52717006.5000806@gmail.com> <5271EFCF.6000101@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFB99@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFBC7@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <5272D09C.8040909@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5272D09C.8040909@gmail.com> Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pld@math.luc.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBI72ZOJQKGQE7M63BAI@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBAABBI72ZOJQKGQE7M63BAI@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 59 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 1531 On 2013-10-31 22:50, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 01/11/2013 10:24, Manfredi, Albert E wrote: >>> From: Erik Kline [mailto:ek@google.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 5:20 PM >>> To: Manfredi, Albert E >>> Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: Why /64 >>> >>>> If a residence, or an automobile, is assigned a /64, presumably any routing >>> from the WAN will be aggregated to that home or vehicle already. Then inside, >>> your gateway takes care of the rest, no? >>> >>> No gateway currently does this, i.e. it will not "just work" today. >>> >>> Furthermore, I would argue that no home gateway currently expects that >>> it should do this, since it hasn't been documented as a requirement. >>> >>> That's the kind of stuff to which I was referring. >> >> Understood. And I find this troubling and unnecessary. That's my point. We have this huge 128-bit address space, and we are putting ourselves in a position where we actually only have maybe 48 or at most 56 bits of "distribution potential," meaning "to different sites." Where IPv4 with CIDR has essentially 32. How come this isn't troubling? > > Because there are trillions of /48s. And because every such site gets a /48 (or /56) and then can do whatever they want with that. ;) Greets, Jeroen -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBDNZ3IMM3YIRBYMUZSJQKGQETO4ZP3Q@cs.luc.edu Thu Oct 31 20:56:50 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-oa0-f71.google.com (mail-oa0-f71.google.com [209.85.219.71]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F046F18FAF for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 20:56:49 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-oa0-f71.google.com with SMTP id j6sf11443805oag.10 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:56:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:to:from:references:subject :in-reply-to:date:message-id:cc:precedence:list-id:list-unsubscribe :list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe:mime-version:sender :errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=2bgX8QnQcDDCg3/63M0jkpNRVhYbrpYuBdMcVclHKAs=; b=PLJhhCRaNv2hkGWMxslyNLFeSd6OMiaqZ5MSofle6kaEfXiPaf5405jI7hf2YeqjWL XQpxM0I3oZU40Rtno3tieT/RO6sfbFgsinXpbL3e5Z+5laHGlKgyblNp628ujYbJv3hE 0dCMXJUHdPCe+b5yQ2+1Yu4C2c6NvGXA1qApYwEC0Drj5WjzaslUdSbJlos9k6CIaX/6 b2TSIj6uWV6l01v9GguDaCRqSkCZr8T+Ipzly3PlOYTSGJGMf/hBH0s+Ip/gE/kXoMv4 to+wdFLvpiuy3vq9LyrVW6158ziRCGHXWN+ofJPk4K3YF8yIqWXieEtTigCoDAyj622n YJcQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlXgP6GK3krctLn3gux579CybAMoX3Xbo6ytIOOvMkTHiFSFxQTbxoX5IG7rzr7AxhXUJH8 X-Received: by 10.182.118.194 with SMTP id ko2mr258179obb.32.1383271009473; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:56:49 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.182.99.132 with SMTP id eq4ls823270obb.87.gmail; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:56:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.29.33 with SMTP id g1mr556780obh.59.1383271009248; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:56:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-f70.google.com (mail-oa0-f70.google.com [209.85.219.70]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u6si3515711obi.54.2013.10.31.18.56.48 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:56:48 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDNZ3IMM3YIRBYEUZSJQKGQEFJZCVQY@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-oa0-f70.google.com with SMTP id j10sf11469180oah.5 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:56:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.42.66.147 with SMTP id p19mr221903ici.12.1383271008794; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:56:48 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.73.106 with SMTP id k10ls233327igv.3.gmail; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:56:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.159.132 with SMTP id xc4mr677945pab.27.1383271008560; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:56:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id l8si3337472pbi.181.2013.10.31.18.56.48 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:56:48 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44E1611E8291; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:56:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9338711E829C for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:56:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GkLN1QxKJBcx for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:56:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39AEB11E8291 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:56:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0A412383D7; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 01:56:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org) Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D692160470; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 02:01:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c211-30-183-50.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.183.50]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C8595160459; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 02:01:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A12D9670E5; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 12:56:11 +1100 (EST) To: "Manfredi, Albert E" From: Mark Andrews References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526D3706.5070409@alvarezp.ods.org> <526E43E8.3080601@gmail.com> <526E91A3.8000807@alvarezp.ods.org> <526F888E.20609@gmail.com> <52702A06.2040102@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AF4FE@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <52717006.5000806@gmail.com> <5271EFCF.6000101@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFB99@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFBC7@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <20131101003900.A95A1966953@rock.dv.isc.org> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFCAF@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> Subject: Re: Why /64 In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 01 Nov 2013 00:59:22 -0000." <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFCAF@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 12:56:11 +1100 Message-Id: <20131101015611.3A12D9670E5@rock.dv.isc.org> Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: marka@isc.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDNZ3IMM3YIRBYEUZSJQKGQEFJZCVQY@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBDNZ3IMM3YIRBYEUZSJQKGQEFJZCVQY@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 60 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 2643 In message <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFCAF@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing. com>, "Manfredi, Albert E" writes: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mark Andrews [mailto:marka@isc.org] > > > > Because at 20 billion people you have 3 million networks per person with > > /56's. > > > > (2^56)/(2*10^10) = 3602879 > > But this continues to miss the point. It used to be mainframes at organizatio > ns. Then it became PCs in homes and offices. Then it became PCs and cell phon > es and tablets and printers and scanners and ... And you think it will get to 3 million things per person that need their own network? Printers, scanners and phones attach to networks. Phone that are tethering can request /64's as required from upstream. > Now think of beacons at road edges, potholes, road signals, street lights, cr > osswalks, yield signs, lane merge, nature trail, bike path, shipping lane, bu > oys, and so on, in addition to what you might have now associated with people > , homes, offices. It's not just associated with people anymore. Again how many of them will need their own network rather than connect to a network? The network count is orders of magnitude smaller than the device count. > All of these need organizational networks. Not all of these networks need any > where close to 2^64 hosts apiece. Why would you need 2^64 IIDs for a subnet o > f neighborhood streetlights, for instance? You don't and and the electricity company / council can configure the network to use something smaller if they want. Nobody is forcing people to use large networks if they don't want to. They can always stand up a stateful DHCP server and send approptiate RA's. They could cover a whole country out of a /64 if they wanted to. You however seem to want everyone to stand up a stateful DHCP server when there is no need to do so. Device configuration doesn't need a stateful DHCP server. Only address assignment needs a stateful DHCP server. Mark > Bert > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBDG3J6XA3QJRBJFPZSJQKGQEM3AHCWQ@cs.luc.edu Thu Oct 31 21:53:25 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-ob0-f199.google.com (mail-ob0-f199.google.com [209.85.214.199]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6646318FA0 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 21:53:25 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-ob0-f199.google.com with SMTP id gq1sf11638488obb.2 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:53:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:subject:from:to:date :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:precedence:list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe :sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=rOI50YM1IfyNNPlucf6YVKopJq3KTn4HV3jJoY4KzU4=; b=FtOFHOKYk+M5XBnzEs+TaQWsM0kDT/1OOPGORT+9657/FcKl1f/iTt5ZJR+OdIty1H HQQg6xwyOjaoIAxhpj8lyKtYhRxZgqDwjloWEH8ar+V/HnbAtzCJJ+PfBAMl9sxUW3We zaKuOPzHzHlrrDBNFOk8G31zcRdxls1eigbZFGapS8gZLuoLBLkNnHBAVqxckmkmnj0k ZAakacFsMUV6Tt0rJ7zhyTDpduzEwnD5FwL+eShoBJkFNudN0eQ7xnmp7C0fuqcsVBhl UsckTOTQgqk6hF455e58alrhOeS565nk2amV/zSR0fuygzEmeGwnZZP/Pm83UzlUUArX 4NUw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl6wpL80Y5XgzweseXILydQl7O/CzV+Qc+6JIljHj2V+zHTWVufuL/ncCPY+5PcajYd9GGN X-Received: by 10.182.108.166 with SMTP id hl6mr303923obb.1.1383274404972; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:53:24 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.77.108 with SMTP id r12ls278724igw.24.gmail; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:53:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.4.232 with SMTP id n8mr877846pbn.9.1383274404770; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:53:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-f69.google.com (mail-pa0-f69.google.com [209.85.220.69]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gu5si3734362pac.275.2013.10.31.19.53.24 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:53:24 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDG3J6XA3QJRBJFPZSJQKGQEJM2YV5Y@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-pa0-f69.google.com with SMTP id kx10sf5938971pab.0 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:53:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.141.46 with SMTP id rl14mr43533pab.44.1383274404343; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:53:24 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.148.69 with SMTP id tq5ls259042igb.12.gmail; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:53:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.254.164 with SMTP id aj4mr851094pbd.161.1383274404077; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:53:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id dl5si3408647pbd.356.2013.10.31.19.53.23 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:53:23 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A2CD11E82AD; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:53:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70E3E11E82AE for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:53:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j0dVrk-SLHLx for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:53:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net [IPv6:2001:44b8:8060:ff02:300:1:2:7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFA6911E82B3 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:53:17 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqIBALcWc1KWZX+7/2dsb2JhbAANTIM/Tr9kgTmDGQEBAQSBCQsYLlcZiA+pKJNIjhCBRoQuA4kIkDGLJohugVQ Received: from eth4284.nsw.adsl.internode.on.net (HELO [192.168.1.196]) ([150.101.127.187]) by ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 01 Nov 2013 13:23:08 +1030 Message-ID: <1383274385.3347.35.camel@karl> Subject: RE: Why /64 From: Karl Auer To: ipv6@ietf.org Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:53:05 +1100 In-Reply-To: <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFCAF@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526D3706.5070409@alvarezp.ods.org> <526E43E8.3080601@gmail.com> <526E91A3.8000807@alvarezp.ods.org> <526F888E.20609@gmail.com> <52702A06.2040102@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AF4FE@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <52717006.5000806@gmail.com> <5271EFCF.6000101@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFB99@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFBC7@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <20131101003900.A95A1966953@rock.dv.isc.org> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFCAF@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3-0ubuntu6 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: kauer@biplane.com.au X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDG3J6XA3QJRBJFPZSJQKGQEJM2YV5Y@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBDG3J6XA3QJRBJFPZSJQKGQEJM2YV5Y@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 61 Status: RO X-Keywords: $label1 Content-Length: 3312 On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 00:59 +0000, Manfredi, Albert E wrote: > Why would you need 2^64 IIDs for a subnet of neighborhood streetlights, for instance? I don't know. But the key thing is that I don't need to. When I ask for a glass of water at a restaurant, I do not know or care how many water molecules I'm buying, either. It doesn't *matter*. No-one ever seems to consider the *advantages* of the "/64 everywhere" approach. They decry the "waste" without looking at what that "waste" is buying: - everything is the same. No more calculating (leaf) subnet sizes, no more stealing from Peter to pay Paul, no more getting it wrong - every subnet is a /64. - there are *always* enough addresses in *any* subnet for you add one more device. Or even a hundred. You might run into other limits, but the addressing will never get in your way. - adding a subnet is easy - just take the next /64. No estimates, calculations, consideration or judgement needed. - your router configs are easier to understand - your documentation is easier to write and easier to read. What this boils down to is greater ease of network management and administration. And that translates directly into money saved - saved in design time, saved in implementation speed, save in ease of troubleshooting, saved in ease of documentation, saved in fewer errors made, saved in less downtime. Spread across the whole Internet, all those advantages multiply. All those benefits come just from having a standard subnet size big enough to accommodate any likely number of hosts. The fact that it is big enough to handle completely *unlikely* numbers of hosts is a bonus - because you can forget about that problem too. Your subnets will *always* be big enough. We could argue about where the line should be; how big the standard network should be. For any remotely reasonable number of devices in a /64, you are using zero percent of the 18 billion billion available addresses. 2, 200, 20,000 or even a million, it's still zero percent to a dozen decimal places. Let's sliiiiiide the pointer to the right, making the standard network smaller and smaller and smaller until that percentage is something bigger - say 1%. What have you achieved? If you still have a big enough subnet to accommodate any likely number of hosts, you are "wasting" addresses. Anything smaller, and you've brought that old IPv4 concern back into the world - "have I got enough addresses?" And if you make it so that you can have any sized leaf subnet, you lose all the lovely advantages of "one size fits all". My definition of "waste" is spending a limited resource for no benefit. The above benefits seem to me to have real value, so I don't consider "/64 everywhere" to be a "waste". Regards, K. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer http://twitter.com/kauer389 GPG fingerprint: B862 FB15 FE96 4961 BC62 1A40 6239 1208 9865 5F9A Old fingerprint: AE1D 4868 6420 AD9A A698 5251 1699 7B78 4EEE 6017 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCC77QGWVMIRBTFBZWJQKGQESQSV4LA@cs.luc.edu Fri Nov 01 01:57:16 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-ob0-f197.google.com (mail-ob0-f197.google.com [209.85.214.197]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA4F218FAF for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 01:57:16 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-ob0-f197.google.com with SMTP id vb8sf12281400obc.8 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 23:57:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=72BGlU71KWRHe6aeTWD2uF8EyUHYMkTwmz9L+SsMYKM=; b=TaotuCGBsvajbEZ0ABsNKlKSOXwABw3uaZwCenIuWoaaI8mMV750twSRhUySASW1n6 Uat9QwaOci8Lti0U9WhknatJko/TnkWD8v1CvjF6qRb6mjTvt2ZsigxK1mZgFIE/W/Zl Y5t54eAtB9qEq4SBrWsCMmLI1DioDGWug5IpqRzk5Lal/UXdTOBZmiHI6L0wQ5ORXoly RL4tC0ZMevjupcdi9v0zu1G+k66Snlz6ijZ9SDDy7qwfHmI3/62tYhuZjLYrsaFiS/0x PtAz2dzzx9cS3pO2n3DKG8GjlrWl9621t2O6vJcXSa/ZQFds07bOJo8+Q8i3cQ9xYFgp Gh9g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm4SdKOykNYMlyBQdBhQa8mzCR7+1MTHw9pwsIVmWZDB9Z6jocKrXz2Jme/pUS4iN/9GziN X-Received: by 10.182.186.105 with SMTP id fj9mr527267obc.5.1383289036333; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 23:57:16 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.32.68 with SMTP id g4ls334548igi.5.canary; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 23:57:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.255.229 with SMTP id at5mr1698087pbd.130.1383289036032; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 23:57:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-f72.google.com (mail-pa0-f72.google.com [209.85.220.72]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id mi5si4129182pab.309.2013.10.31.23.57.15 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 31 Oct 2013 23:57:15 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBS5BZWJQKGQETKV5JPA@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-pa0-f72.google.com with SMTP id rd3sf6253176pab.7 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 23:57:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.172.79 with SMTP id ba15mr536837pac.26.1383289035754; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 23:57:15 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.152.41 with SMTP id uv9ls313284igb.43.gmail; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 23:57:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.137.103 with SMTP id qh7mr1670156pbb.175.1383289035516; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 23:57:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id tu7si2083114pab.191.2013.10.31.23.57.15 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 23:57:15 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF2DB11E810D; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 23:57:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7724A11E810D for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 23:57:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RzX-n8Z3mQAT for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 23:57:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from globis01.globis.net (RayH-1-pt.tunnel.tserv11.ams1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f14:62e::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B035721F9FEE for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 23:57:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DDAE87005F; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 07:57:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from globis01.globis.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.globis.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WUUsGmBBpXOk; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 07:57:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from Rays-iMac-2.local (unknown [192.168.0.3]) (Authenticated sender: Ray.Hunter@globis.net) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 5296F870056; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 07:57:08 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <527350C2.50502@globis.net> Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 07:57:06 +0100 From: Ray Hunter User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.8 (Macintosh/20130427) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Andrews Subject: Re: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526D3706.5070409@alvarezp.ods.org> <526E43E8.3080601@gmail.com> <526E91A3.8000807@alvarezp.ods.org> <526F888E.20609@gmail.com> <52702A06.2040102@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AF4FE@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <52717006.5000806@gmail.com> <5271EFCF.6000101@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFB99@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFBC7@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <5272D09C.8040909@ gmail.co m> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFC01@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <20131031223552.7FA479651F2@rock.dv.isc.org> In-Reply-To: <20131031223552.7FA479651F2@rock.dv.isc.org> Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pld@math.luc.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBS5BZWJQKGQETKV5JPA@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBAABBS5BZWJQKGQETKV5JPA@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-UID: 62 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 2968 Mark Andrews wrote: > In message <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFC01@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.b= oeing.com>, "Manfredi, Albert E" writes: >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com] >>> Because there are trillions of /48s. >> And we think that is way more than adequate, today. Until the paradigm c= hanges, and every vehicle, every street, e >> very building, every person, will need its own internal subnet structure= . For things like vehicle-to-infrastructur >> e comms, vehicle-to-vehicle comms, internal vehicle controls and diagnos= tics (separated into multiple subsystems o >> f course), wearable medical sensors, and who knows what else. And space. >> >> I'm just saying, classful IPv4 also seemed like plenty at first. It was = a mere decade before we knew differently. > > No classful IPv4 was *known* to not scale from the very beginning. > > There are 72057594037927936 /56's which are what most ISP are > planning to hand out to residential customers. > > If you really want to be miserly you can request /64's on a needs > basis with PD which is what internal home routers will need to do > so the code to support this will exist if we ever need to got to > that level when talking to ISP's. Which would be fine if: 1) All allocations continue to be made by ISPs on a network provider =3D> consumer model 2) We had a routing mechanism that could handle such a flat addressing structure 3) We had a delegation mechanism for naming and addressing that could easily cope with delegation on bit boundaries. but we don't. 1. More and more we see demand from manufacturers e.g. car engine management, and even subcomponent management. 2. We have a very limited number of bits of hierachy for route aggregation, and thus effectively a limit to the hierarchical depth of network topology/ organisations. 3. Once you factor in recommendations to delegate on nibble boundaries (e.g. for DNS) you have somewhere around /32 to /64 =3D =B19 nibble boundaries =3D> 9 levels of depth of hierarchy + a flat LAN. IMHO I think what we effectively have is an administrative (non-technical) limit to scaling today, largely limited by an ability to register, delegate, and aggregate; rather than the huge number of possible addresses or prefixes. 'twas ever thus. In IPv4 it was effectively +/- 3 levels (octet boundaries + a flat LAN). regards. >> Bert >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >> ipv6@ietf.org >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- = Regards, RayH -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBDNZ3IMM3YIRBGHFZWJQKGQELIJKUYI@cs.luc.edu Fri Nov 01 04:21:29 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-ob0-f199.google.com (mail-ob0-f199.google.com [209.85.214.199]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16CEE18FAE for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 04:21:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-ob0-f199.google.com with SMTP id gq1sf12612029obb.2 for ; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 02:21:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:to:from:references:subject :in-reply-to:date:message-id:cc:precedence:list-id:list-unsubscribe :list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe:mime-version:sender :errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type; bh=7ZxIWOI/g2xk/fTEqZt1EJpbNyOnAJyc6XrITCrqNMc=; b=SUlBbIIGdjAjvYTg7eGtA7kAHdzy+IX5D3SY5lhPy3uB167BCJdgnGq02Ar82fKmmK hozCbPIoqG6ZQ2foA7FTTQOhqITP9WpLlytl8Sq29kVGpqv55ErVsK/a3m6uMo7GpqaE +wQdtKvAsVejz+nzd1Vcc0SquLgd1q/wrvqZpOUfJNlOQl3Xs+HNr9YEhdpQ/nOFZqS+ IkDSHHCaTz/K1EXWe+5VZeVKmuyMKzE0yHP6h56pFJFaGLz/YzXkNhoIlFGrAZyXx4BP fZK+iRZ7X3uLml9gRzgBSv6e67tP1dowix4h0VWLcKjIdIU0ywIPI/tl6RENOJxFDvTo US7A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmrU6oo0hoyryo2IHpYIUmC8lzoi86SwZvxKlx9YL4PSBDPN47JYgOyGpXM38i0vtotoxS7 X-Received: by 10.50.12.68 with SMTP id w4mr676649igb.0.1383297688680; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 02:21:28 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.182.245.227 with SMTP id xr3ls863183obc.65.gmail; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 02:21:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.60.95.202 with SMTP id dm10mr1813212oeb.0.1383297688528; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 02:21:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-f72.google.com (mail-oa0-f72.google.com [209.85.219.72]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id jb8si2219166obb.144.2013.11.01.02.21.28 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 01 Nov 2013 02:21:28 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDNZ3IMM3YIRBGHFZWJQKGQELK2L42I@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-oa0-f72.google.com with SMTP id m17sf12653056oag.7 for ; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 02:21:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.3.40 with SMTP id 8mr819435igz.1.1383297688059; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 02:21:28 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.138.229 with SMTP id qt5ls379879igb.24.canary; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 02:21:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.191.106 with SMTP id gx10mr2204271pbc.47.1383297687820; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 02:21:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id ei3si4116162pbc.230.2013.11.01.02.21.27 for ; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 02:21:27 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D93D21F9AA8; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 02:21:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A95021F9AA8 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 02:21:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1CEANDJzhjfX for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 02:21:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [199.6.1.65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42F9211E8120 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 02:21:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15DF12383E2; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 09:21:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org) Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 021AE160470; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 09:25:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c211-30-183-50.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.183.50]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8D90E160363; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 09:25:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AACE396B315; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 20:20:30 +1100 (EST) To: Ray Hunter From: Mark Andrews References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526D3706.5070409@alvarezp.ods.org> <526E43E8.3080601@gmail.com> <526E91A3.8000807@alvarezp.ods.org> <526F888E.20609@gmail.com> <52702A06.2040102@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AF4FE@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <52717006.5000806@gmail.com> <5271EFCF.6000101@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFB99@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFBC7@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <5272D09C.8040909@ gmail.co m> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFC01@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <20131031223552.7FA479651F2@rock.dv.isc.org> <527350C2.50502@globis.net> Subject: Re: Why /64 In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 01 Nov 2013 07:57:06 +0100." <527350C2.50502@globis.net> Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 20:20:30 +1100 Message-Id: <20131101092030.AACE396B315@rock.dv.isc.org> Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: marka@isc.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDNZ3IMM3YIRBGHFZWJQKGQELK2L42I@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBDNZ3IMM3YIRBGHFZWJQKGQELK2L42I@math.luc.edu Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2422310638521657579==" X-UID: 63 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 3787 --===============2422310638521657579== Content-Type: text/plain In message <527350C2.50502@globis.net>, Ray Hunter writes: > > > Mark Andrews wrote: > > In message <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFC01@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boe > ing.com>, "Manfredi, Albert E" writes: > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com] > >>> Because there are trillions of /48s. > >> And we think that is way more than adequate, today. Until the paradigm cha > nges, and every vehicle, every street, e > >> very building, every person, will need its own internal subnet structure. > For things like vehicle-to-infrastructur > >> e comms, vehicle-to-vehicle comms, internal vehicle controls and diagnosti > cs (separated into multiple subsystems o > >> f course), wearable medical sensors, and who knows what else. And space. > >> > >> I'm just saying, classful IPv4 also seemed like plenty at first. It was a > mere decade before we knew differently. > > > > No classful IPv4 was *known* to not scale from the very beginning. > > > > There are 72057594037927936 /56's which are what most ISP are > > planning to hand out to residential customers. > > > > If you really want to be miserly you can request /64's on a needs > > basis with PD which is what internal home routers will need to do > > so the code to support this will exist if we ever need to got to > > that level when talking to ISP's. > > Which would be fine if: > > 1) All allocations continue to be made by ISPs on a network provider => > consumer model Consumers dominate delegations. > 2) We had a routing mechanism that could handle such a flat addressing > structure ISP's would still be aggregating the routes. > 3) We had a delegation mechanism for naming and addressing that could > easily cope with delegation on bit boundaries. > but we don't. But we do. It really isn't that hard to a delegate 8 zones (worst case) over 1. > 1. More and more we see demand from manufacturers e.g. car engine > management, and even subcomponent management. > > 2. We have a very limited number of bits of hierachy for route > aggregation, and thus effectively a limit to the hierarchical depth of > network topology/ organisations. > > 3. Once you factor in recommendations to delegate on nibble boundaries > (e.g. for DNS) you have somewhere around /32 to /64 = ±9 nibble > boundaries => 9 levels of depth of hierarchy + a flat LAN. If you are allocating /64's you *are* allocating on a bit boundary. > IMHO I think what we effectively have is an administrative > (non-technical) limit to scaling today, largely limited by an ability to > register, delegate, and aggregate; rather than the huge number of > possible addresses or prefixes. 'twas ever thus. In IPv4 it was > effectively +/- 3 levels (octet boundaries + a flat LAN). > > regards. > > >> Bert > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > >> ipv6@ietf.org > >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > Regards, > RayH > -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org --===============2422310638521657579== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- --===============2422310638521657579==-- From pld+bncBCC77QGWVMIRBA4SZ2JQKGQEG4QM6RI@cs.luc.edu Fri Nov 01 05:57:08 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-vc0-f197.google.com (mail-vc0-f197.google.com [209.85.220.197]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25C5718FA0 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 05:57:08 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f197.google.com with SMTP id ld13sf7792852vcb.8 for ; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 03:57:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=PKCFkaf3GU60SG552rXIR9ayCLM6/QwfbX9Ub/o/wtc=; b=gqQyxVs4Ivgacn2TVDIICz1eEgVnwx77Mx6YwTlHCR9AyAqpVVC2DzvgXQ1HFKw4EU pvu3dR02BKXeYCKCEgvoucGtD3QKrtWx7yIzGBKpOVKnqNP8Z5/dDtmFFsnsNxQyI0mg LprJK9aagsHaHWroueoSXqbCIqplGifZ2/TboP+GVjhaCkmF0cV3/ACh6H0IMVtywPOB HU6i95BBYAylx8/6swfMVXYjqZZkXPCAgka528Pj3xxyZAilRxGiOrM/89Ir136Jut+7 E7RmN54C1SBtWDijRq0YI+qc+JyEjymhq04g17Dw5ApDdSIY1UMmjW9iBKULmpqfRsGE WssQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmoQOQT9IhgZNU3ktamT48GTmiY4nFFiTzj8fP0nFk8NKOuHhBcH7mYaV3Bv34gqhv2iUSZ X-Received: by 10.58.237.10 with SMTP id uy10mr792006vec.16.1383303427664; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 03:57:07 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.49.105.34 with SMTP id gj2ls1341160qeb.52.gmail; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 03:57:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.224.23.1 with SMTP id p1mr2973226qab.17.1383303427521; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 03:57:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-f71.google.com (mail-qa0-f71.google.com [209.85.216.71]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x1si3344531qeq.67.2013.11.01.03.57.07 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 01 Nov 2013 03:57:07 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBAUSZ2JQKGQERKRGPVI@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-qa0-f71.google.com with SMTP id w8sf1642278qac.2 for ; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 03:57:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.236.56.70 with SMTP id l46mr1285707yhc.2.1383303426939; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 03:57:06 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.118.97 with SMTP id kl1ls393712igb.35.canary; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 03:57:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.161.138 with SMTP id xs10mr2627567pab.56.1383303426685; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 03:57:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id it5si4333422pbc.5.2013.11.01.03.57.06 for ; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 03:57:06 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39DF111E818C; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 03:57:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DCD111E81A7 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 03:57:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JafHn67VDFVL for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 03:57:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from globis01.globis.net (RayH-1-pt.tunnel.tserv11.ams1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f14:62e::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A22811E818C for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 03:57:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAD4387006D; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 11:57:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from globis01.globis.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.globis.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VNryDaLPvPP3; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 11:57:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from Rays-iMac-2.local (unknown [192.168.0.3]) (Authenticated sender: Ray.Hunter@globis.net) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A4E8787005F; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 11:57:00 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <527388FB.8090905@globis.net> Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 11:56:59 +0100 From: Ray Hunter User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.8 (Macintosh/20130427) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Andrews Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <526D3706.5070409@alvarezp.ods.org> <526E43E8.3080601@gmail.com> <526E91A3.8000807@alvarezp.ods.org> <526F888E.20609@gmail.com> <52702A06.2040102@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AF4FE@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <52717006.5000806@gmail.com> <5271EFCF.6000101@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFB99@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFBC7@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <5272D09C.8040909@ gmail.co m> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFC01@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <20131031223552.7FA479651F2@rock.dv.isc.org> <527350C2.50502@globis.net> <20131101092030.AACE396B315@rock.dv.i sc.org> In-Reply-To: <20131101092030.AACE396B315@rock.dv.isc.org> Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pld@math.luc.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBAUSZ2JQKGQERKRGPVI@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBAABBAUSZ2JQKGQERKRGPVI@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-UID: 64 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 5454 > Mark Andrews > 1 November 2013 10:20 > In message <527350C2.50502@globis.net>, Ray Hunter writes: >> Mark Andrews wrote: >>> In message <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFC01@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos= .boe >> ing.com>, "Manfredi, Albert E" writes: >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com] >>>>> Because there are trillions of /48s. >>>> And we think that is way more than adequate, today. Until the paradigm= cha >> nges, and every vehicle, every street, e >>>> very building, every person, will need its own internal subnet structu= re. = >> For things like vehicle-to-infrastructur >>>> e comms, vehicle-to-vehicle comms, internal vehicle controls and diagn= osti >> cs (separated into multiple subsystems o >>>> f course), wearable medical sensors, and who knows what else. And spac= e. >>>> >>>> I'm just saying, classful IPv4 also seemed like plenty at first. It wa= s a = >> mere decade before we knew differently. >>> No classful IPv4 was *known* to not scale from the very beginning. >>> >>> There are 72057594037927936 /56's which are what most ISP are >>> planning to hand out to residential customers. >>> >>> If you really want to be miserly you can request /64's on a needs >>> basis with PD which is what internal home routers will need to do >>> so the code to support this will exist if we ever need to got to >>> that level when talking to ISP's. >> Which would be fine if: >> >> 1) All allocations continue to be made by ISPs on a network provider =3D> >> consumer model > > Consumers dominate delegations. In terms of numbers. Currently. The scaling limit is hierarchical complexity. Not the total absolute numbers of elements. That's exactly the same mistake made in IPv4 to start with when designing class-based routing. > = >> 2) We had a routing mechanism that could handle such a flat addressing >> structure > > ISP's would still be aggregating the routes. = Only if the connection runs over an ISP link, and only at Internet global level. The Internet is more than ISPs. > >> 3) We had a delegation mechanism for naming and addressing that could >> easily cope with delegation on bit boundaries. >> but we don't. > > But we do. It really isn't that hard to a delegate 8 zones (worst case) > over 1. > = You are thinking technically. Try getting outsourcing partners to share management responsibility for a zone or address space. >> 1. More and more we see demand from manufacturers e.g. car engine >> management, and even subcomponent management. >> >> 2. We have a very limited number of bits of hierachy for route >> aggregation, and thus effectively a limit to the hierarchical depth of >> network topology/ organisations. >> >> 3. Once you factor in recommendations to delegate on nibble boundaries >> (e.g. for DNS) you have somewhere around /32 to /64 =3D =B19 nibble >> boundaries =3D> 9 levels of depth of hierarchy + a flat LAN. > > If you are allocating /64's you *are* allocating on a bit boundary. Take off your techie hat and put on an administration hat and start thinking organisational complexity (who manages space, who configures DNS, who configures aggregation, who configures DSCP pattern matches, who configures firewall rules?) Have you ever produced an IPv6 numbering plan for an enterprise? Rather than an ISP with a flat org structure? If people start building in organisational elements or other semantics into the numbering plan (to allow delegation of space/control to people or organisations or automated processes, or to simplify ACL pattern matches, or management, or whatever) you get close to running out of hierarchy quite quickly. Here's an 8 level hierarchy already You can argue whether this is a sensible allocation structure. But that's equivalent to 7 nibbles after the top level allocation, with one nibble per element. If you have large numbers of elements at any level of the hierarchy, you need more than one nibble. So that's already bits from /32 to /64 completely filled on day one. CIDR beyond /64 would allow some more room for manoeuvre/ creativity to tie yourself in knots. Delete as appropriate. But in any case, the scaling limit on hierarchy is many orders of magnitude lower than your suggestion/assumption of 72057594037927936 flat /56 allocations. > = >> IMHO I think what we effectively have is an administrative >> (non-technical) limit to scaling today, largely limited by an ability to >> register, delegate, and aggregate; rather than the huge number of >> possible addresses or prefixes. 'twas ever thus. In IPv4 it was >> effectively +/- 3 levels (octet boundaries + a flat LAN). >> >> regards. >> >>>> Bert >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >>>> ipv6@ietf.org >>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> -- = >> Regards, >> RayH >> -- = Regards, RayH -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCE5ZRV5VACRBE7AZ2JQKGQEN6JDORY@cs.luc.edu Fri Nov 01 08:43:48 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-yh0-f72.google.com (mail-yh0-f72.google.com [209.85.213.72]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EDA517D7F for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 08:43:48 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-yh0-f72.google.com with SMTP id z20sf8628636yhz.7 for ; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 06:43:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:precedence:list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe :content-type:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results; bh=mpDxE8cb58/dDwsnVDV3ZXWwlh4MmuDBLZ8ZCF1Z63Y=; b=F34/uSQ4W/LOlNyfqc65TJZHBnNgBA7HVXUAKTcoZfVixI/W2ERjRVYNuv980C7Fiu 0QVyljT/UqN06RrcSLR81gzlVx62lsQFHs+tzWygrWghLW6dyyDm2wDdmbUPI1FnGX8y nR1xAnYejlyH4zoX+Eo6Ck5by0MV4K9wAgB+MCRbApPU26pbqtN54UJnVZObuY0sns9G k2bxYH2Pct0NRDGbPydsYI95KxVU+u3JGIbCFdGMfT9QwFs+b5tOEQFANFPF8gekQYRw Cs5Gb9K31DyGfy8/L7D3wdhJhpEMY06/brXDdPv+Grs7cDCBokItmAI0JmRwDH/ruZvM C+nw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk9/YAtKKruzcs1N3g2pjRY4Fv4FPfp0AP4ieLxW5/4HNGDgtsL7d2P5EgEHWl76huzs/sA X-Received: by 10.236.82.115 with SMTP id n79mr1490114yhe.35.1383313427515; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 06:43:47 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.182.18.39 with SMTP id t7ls961276obd.54.gmail; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 06:43:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.60.134.42 with SMTP id ph10mr563630oeb.76.1383313427355; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 06:43:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-f71.google.com (mail-oa0-f71.google.com [209.85.219.71]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ds9si4526013obc.8.2013.11.01.06.43.47 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 01 Nov 2013 06:43:47 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCE5ZRV5VACRBEXAZ2JQKGQEFEE3O5A@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-oa0-f71.google.com with SMTP id j6sf13289033oag.6 for ; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 06:43:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.43.100.129 with SMTP id cw1mr55737icc.30.1383313426965; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 06:43:46 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.110.69 with SMTP id hy5ls442512igb.31.canary; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 06:43:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.212.37 with SMTP id nh5mr3341584pbc.16.1383313426750; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 06:43:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id gw3si4954656pac.85.2013.11.01.06.43.46 for ; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 06:43:46 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44A6321E84D8; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 06:43:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EED5C21E81CC for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 05:36:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JBD4flZrWAdr for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 05:36:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 905A121E82AB for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 05:35:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CA4888108 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 05:35:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 102527254.rudm1.ra.johnshopkins.edu (addr16212925014.ippl.jhmi.edu [162.129.250.14]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8B05130003 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 05:35:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <52739FF6.3050307@innovationslab.net> Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 08:35:02 -0400 From: Brian Haberman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526D3706.5070409@alvarezp.ods.org> <526E43E8.3080601@gmail.com> <526E91A3.8000807@alvarezp.ods.org> <526F888E.20609@gmail.com> <52702A06.2040102@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AF4FE@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <52717006.5000806@gmail.com> <5271EFCF.6000101@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFB99@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFBC7@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <20131101003900.A95A1966953@rock.dv.isc.org> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFCAF@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing. com> In-Reply-To: <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFCAF@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3993272546739628288==" Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: brian@innovationslab.net X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCE5ZRV5VACRBEXAZ2JQKGQEFEE3O5A@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBCE5ZRV5VACRBEXAZ2JQKGQEFEE3O5A@math.luc.edu X-UID: 65 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 3003 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --===============3993272546739628288== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="1P7jf1Vx9XS6mgsCeCEpxvapvA0lMLnK9" This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --1P7jf1Vx9XS6mgsCeCEpxvapvA0lMLnK9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Bert, On 10/31/13 8:59 PM, Manfredi, Albert E wrote: >> -----Original Message----- From: Mark Andrews >> [mailto:marka@isc.org] >=20 >=20 >> Because at 20 billion people you have 3 million networks per person >> with /56's. >>=20 >> (2^56)/(2*10^10) =3D 3602879 >=20 > But this continues to miss the point. It used to be mainframes at > organizations. Then it became PCs in homes and offices. Then it > became PCs and cell phones and tablets and printers and scanners and > ... >=20 > Now think of beacons at road edges, potholes, road signals, street > lights, crosswalks, yield signs, lane merge, nature trail, bike path, > shipping lane, buoys, and so on, in addition to what you might have > now associated with people, homes, offices. It's not just associated > with people anymore. >=20 > All of these need organizational networks. Not all of these networks > need anywhere close to 2^64 hosts apiece. Why would you need 2^64 > IIDs for a subnet of neighborhood streetlights, for instance? I had an interesting conversation with a group of folks interested in building networks just like you describe (i.e., road signs, buoys, lane markers, etc.). They did not seem to think the /64 boundary was a problem mainly because they did not see these networks using globally addressable addresses. Just a data point. Regards, Brian --1P7jf1Vx9XS6mgsCeCEpxvapvA0lMLnK9 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.20 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJSc5//AAoJEBOZRqCi7goqcSIH+wX6bCgqTD1GBpcu7R7IpIvq wOLbT+yw5A6CsjqROj67M3+dPOPVMwEXOlrcWyvVTATDNQEjmozzioWRSjjqLHms YRrvsvKpVnOiwVd2P9Kp9m+qfGCuN9N5T2AE+jP8bG9wjxhNxs+daj3Z9lBjMYbf 0j0AqHGw9e0680R8Db2vGmig8ErLjW79Zv1EZv6e0jCZ9SVB2875jxpc38VAIIvY EYh4xcJjCzBIXAE6/wMQIhh+VdIeUScxu0Sdp0uJWhkaFPKBNkUpx5H/pgNotx+v /KLwFoqkvWkWn5jvUnBgfsGrMkseGtJRt+PeXTZWcd7xCc4xgB6ZSs+soN+L/O4= =i1A1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --1P7jf1Vx9XS6mgsCeCEpxvapvA0lMLnK9-- --===============3993272546739628288== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- --===============3993272546739628288==-- From pld+bncBCOYDX7L4IHBBQM42CJQKGQE6KMZ77Q@cs.luc.edu Fri Nov 01 15:25:38 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-vc0-f199.google.com (mail-vc0-f199.google.com [209.85.220.199]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC27D18F9D for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 15:25:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f199.google.com with SMTP id ia6sf8766418vcb.6 for ; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:25:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:from:to:subject:thread-topic :thread-index:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :mime-version:cc:precedence:list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive :list-post:list-help:list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :content-language:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=iPzp3eEmIwCsuHPRg+09zIRCwEjzWod5fuxmz/P/T8k=; b=hHCJnbzrVdKgN6szV8OEqHMwrtO4+Asi2TbJ9A7g0jMlPxU3Pp1JxjV9Qjmwafrz6h 0bEHDdu0nt/0sGoK463IT9/G9y4Lj3TGix424OtDp2C97JYQQQq0pkaA4qAQW1lPrUVP TBA1v4YGFDSihy3BafmPF+3r8GaUjJ0X7ojr8ioQxkZvRwuywqITe65YFY0ZKwSWBEoW uZDtxjKdQaFY8xdZlC53ai9CxxtOmIBVL7gX0b8KCEocMJ1WEnPs+74fa/4ffZ9qrm5O DiwmsCQbOuxU0HuqDgwCJHMvmMjzl9hcflO8dh0PKNLerTzwPclYsYW+ymvuLo/VOt9X 1bjg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn56OucQwAAGkTE4Jt4wBZWLONFge24Xnj58aBW0ZrhS0u/oc5NzZ1qYAWchdHwlfgD7lFH X-Received: by 10.58.128.33 with SMTP id nl1mr1588306veb.28.1383337537576; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:25:37 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.124.103 with SMTP id mh7ls594940igb.44.gmail; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:25:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.52.231 with SMTP id w7mr4984977pbo.19.1383337537341; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:25:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pd0-f198.google.com (mail-pd0-f198.google.com [209.85.192.198]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hj4si5677293pac.126.2013.11.01.13.25.36 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:25:36 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCOYDX7L4IHBBQE42CJQKGQEEMN74VA@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-pd0-f198.google.com with SMTP id v10sf7245260pde.1 for ; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:25:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.117.170 with SMTP id kf10mr1014603pab.35.1383337536449; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:25:36 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.222.69 with SMTP id qk5ls600362igc.22.canary; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:25:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.211.202 with SMTP id ne10mr4967665pbc.168.1383337536227; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:25:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id mi5si5691436pab.48.2013.11.01.13.25.36 for ; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:25:36 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38D5E21E80B7; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:25:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C011411E8131 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:25:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E3rT93tWPaUu for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:25:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com (slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com [130.76.64.129]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D0D911E811D for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:25:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id rA1KPOSp027978 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:25:25 -0700 Received: from XCH-PHX-106.sw.nos.boeing.com (xch-phx-106.sw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.238.9]) by slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id rA1KPOQD027974 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:25:24 -0700 Received: from XCH-BLV-212.nw.nos.boeing.com (137.136.239.115) by XCH-PHX-106.sw.nos.boeing.com (137.136.238.9) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:25:24 -0700 Received: from XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.6.120]) by XCH-BLV-212.nw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.12.214]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:25:23 -0700 From: "Manfredi, Albert E" To: Ralph Droms , Brian Haberman Subject: RE: Why /64 Thread-Topic: Why /64 Thread-Index: AQHO1v7IB/yghD8940SkW9z+LgGPCZoQ4WcA///t46A= Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 20:25:22 +0000 Message-ID: <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFEA7@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526D3706.5070409@alvarezp.ods.org> <526E43E8.3080601@gmail.com> <526E91A3.8000807@alvarezp.ods.org> <526F888E.20609@gmail.com> <52702A06.2040102@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AF4FE@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <52717006.5000806@gmail.com> <5271EFCF.6000101@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFB99@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFBC7@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <20131101003900.A95A1966953@rock.dv.isc.org> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFCAF@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing. com> <52739FF6.3050307@innovationslab.net> <1A94EDA2-CD70-41A6-A5AC-D0BCED8C3127@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1A94EDA2-CD70-41A6-A5AC-D0BCED8C3127@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-MML: disable Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org List IPv6" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCOYDX7L4IHBBQE42CJQKGQEEMN74VA@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBCOYDX7L4IHBBQE42CJQKGQEEMN74VA@math.luc.edu Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 66 Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: Content-Length: 2229 > On Nov 1, 2013, at 8:35 AM 11/1/13, Brian Haberman > wrote: > I don't think the /64 boundary is important even if those devices are using > global addresses. Presumably there is some route aggregation somewhere that > puts these networks behind a /mumble that's compatible with Internet core > routing, and the other endpoints exchanging traffic with these nodes using > /(greater-than-64) just see the 128-bit endpoint address and are agnostic > about the length of the prefix. > > One could imagine using a technique like this to mitigate some multi-link > subnet problems by allowing prefixes /(greater-than-64) within the subnet > while advertising a single /64 from a border router. Exactly my thought. For example, I would consider assigning a /64 to each automobile. Then inside the auto, a 16-bit prefix, to create a lot of /80 subnets, for each internal system. Something along those lines. Route aggregation would be at the /64 address. Brian believes that this approach would be IPv4.1, because his emphasis is more on IID length to facilitate SLAAC. Instead, I think it's IPv6, because it goes way beyond 32 bits (and NAT!!) of IPv4, to get decent distribution of networks. Plus, there's nothing set in stone that says SLAAC can't be done with fewer than 64 bits of IID. The chances for collisions goes up, however the number of hosts assumed per subnet would typically be fewer, mitigating that problem. (Host discovers subnet mask from RA, and configures its SLAAC address accordingly.) And then you use DAD. Besides which, my in-home router/modem seems to have no problem doing its own DHCP anyway, so this isn't exactly a show stopper. As to the various beacons and digital signs and so on, global addressing makes sense for these, if one plans on using them for any and all vehicles. Same deal with wearable medical sensors on people. Of course, other addressing schemes could also be used, such as NSAPAs. ;) Bert -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCE5ZRV5VACRBH472CJQKGQE5YDU5KI@cs.luc.edu Fri Nov 01 15:31:28 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-vc0-f197.google.com (mail-vc0-f197.google.com [209.85.220.197]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0748518F9D for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 15:31:27 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f197.google.com with SMTP id ld13sf8801807vcb.4 for ; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:31:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:content-type:sender:errors-to:mailing-list :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results; bh=aNC/eW0N277YKwwY5w3lMfzdPSNObourRK2yECLHbHA=; b=Ss8l/teqHOh89Ct0LF4n64JhXvVQ1oB7GVqigLLAwF/JLze4GRdFGbKVqPedS/rm5d 6pVBMzPJLPXeLDNtaZNa1rz5JChp2Tz8Y4RZeY5K81hB2bUdYXbbbYtLGen8rQ00Aiax YXwXoO7/cQcwiNfhneOfYouMpeEnOqNY5Fhv2dT0es89cnRWuHBfRIaE6HKCS6rBizte zRDaBzOsYYGa/rOxc4tpS/AzIOlWgrTIAX/I+lvjsTmW4YtcOskFyuGuztRGE9hPGg9r p34FF2gtfk2irBiPmZcGOyolEDeeVySiCKS4mIFhCdN/o/SMud2DlW49t69yABtqDL7w 2rfw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl+ZHkXE8y5+fEjbVvRkACNi8MA9SDMfiXb+II36BASI0ZgnrXPecSsAO9GaXPVuAgq1Qz2 X-Received: by 10.236.32.74 with SMTP id n50mr2420159yha.13.1383337887550; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:31:27 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.118.6 with SMTP id ki6ls607624igb.20.gmail; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:31:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.154.66 with SMTP id vm2mr3770455igb.57.1383337887386; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:31:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-f200.google.com (mail-ie0-f200.google.com [209.85.223.200]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ff16si36998igb.27.2013.11.01.13.31.26 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:31:26 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCE5ZRV5VACRBHU72CJQKGQENY4EKPA@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-ie0-f200.google.com with SMTP id aq17sf13752450iec.11 for ; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:31:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.42.238.208 with SMTP id kt16mr1386475icb.10.1383337886943; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:31:26 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.80.42 with SMTP id o10ls586372igx.30.gmail; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:31:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.67.4.197 with SMTP id cg5mr4957463pad.10.1383337885418; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:31:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id sj5si5696003pab.81.2013.11.01.13.31.25 for ; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:31:25 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC87111E813D; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:31:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7709A21E80FC for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:31:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pE8KtqcLspha for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:31:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7604F11E813D for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:30:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61F21880A4; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:30:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Littlejohn.local (c-69-140-213-249.hsd1.md.comcast.net [69.140.213.249]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1F85130003; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:30:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <52740F7A.4050900@innovationslab.net> Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 16:30:50 -0400 From: Brian Haberman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Manfredi, Albert E" , Ralph Droms Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <526E91A3.8000807@alvarezp.ods.org> <526F888E.20609@gmail.com> <52702A06.2040102@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AF4FE@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <52717006.5000806@gmail.com> <5271EFCF.6000101@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFB99@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFBC7@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <20131101003900.A95A1966953@rock.dv.isc.org> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFCAF@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing. com> <52739FF6.3050307@innovationslab.net> <1A94EDA2-CD70-41A6-A5AC-D0BCED8C3127@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFEA7@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.co m> In-Reply-To: <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFEA7@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org List IPv6" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0542454945041768596==" Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: brian@innovationslab.net X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCE5ZRV5VACRBHU72CJQKGQENY4EKPA@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBCE5ZRV5VACRBHU72CJQKGQENY4EKPA@math.luc.edu X-UID: 67 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 4137 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --===============0542454945041768596== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="FJ7rjhUqboF6is81xpAGiUxfw3KTShMww" This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --FJ7rjhUqboF6is81xpAGiUxfw3KTShMww Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Bert, On 11/1/13 4:25 PM, Manfredi, Albert E wrote: >> On Nov 1, 2013, at 8:35 AM 11/1/13, Brian Haberman >> wrote: >=20 >=20 >> I don't think the /64 boundary is important even if those devices >> are using global addresses. Presumably there is some route >> aggregation somewhere that puts these networks behind a /mumble >> that's compatible with Internet core routing, and the other >> endpoints exchanging traffic with these nodes using=20 >> /(greater-than-64) just see the 128-bit endpoint address and are >> agnostic about the length of the prefix. >>=20 >> One could imagine using a technique like this to mitigate some >> multi-link subnet problems by allowing prefixes /(greater-than-64) >> within the subnet while advertising a single /64 from a border >> router. >=20 > Exactly my thought. For example, I would consider assigning a /64 to > each automobile. Then inside the auto, a 16-bit prefix, to create a > lot of /80 subnets, for each internal system. Something along those > lines. For things like automobiles I am not sure why you need more than one subnet, but OK. >=20 > Route aggregation would be at the /64 address. >=20 > Brian believes that this approach would be IPv4.1, because his > emphasis is more on IID length to facilitate SLAAC. Instead, I think > it's IPv6, because it goes way beyond 32 bits (and NAT!!) of IPv4, to > get decent distribution of networks. I am pretty sure I did not make any such statement, but maybe you are referring to Brian C. >=20 > Plus, there's nothing set in stone that says SLAAC can't be done with > fewer than 64 bits of IID. The chances for collisions goes up, > however the number of hosts assumed per subnet would typically be > fewer, mitigating that problem. (Host discovers subnet mask from RA, > and configures its SLAAC address accordingly.) And then you use DAD. > Besides which, my in-home router/modem seems to have no problem doing > its own DHCP anyway, so this isn't exactly a show stopper. >=20 > As to the various beacons and digital signs and so on, global > addressing makes sense for these, if one plans on using them for any > and all vehicles. Same deal with wearable medical sensors on people. > Of course, other addressing schemes could also be used, such as > NSAPAs. ;) >=20 The *only* purpose of my original e-mail was to provide a data point on how some people looking at new types of networks are thinking about addressing. Regards, Brian H. --FJ7rjhUqboF6is81xpAGiUxfw3KTShMww Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.20 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJSdA+BAAoJEBOZRqCi7goqxW4H/298G5jwds+pg/txIPrvQ0L7 Pvj/oghae7dj+Xj5jcA9CmbcsQoI1uzCpb0AyG5VmVdG8VB38hLwQ7z3f7ZDpwDa 92XPrKkqm53VTZLPY6DleuN5+aIkYGwSkMcoUTXvRggVH0sIOCij4uw+9AWUess1 y3fFw34qHKX86sxmAC50a5ibJ4N6IxEdgvZNpzhGlnUxdfCVeh3+u4MmUWNy7Rpt gdCcxQ3b0bxbYajfrclSPis4izLU9Bz1iiUV/EMFqzgS72ydvRFRcTauImz2bT9e xuh6cIF1YK8VSLfAfwGn/ej5KTjxszBqm3OtSwgMVcRyMw3kKu0SX4DzH8vz2R8= =sNC5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --FJ7rjhUqboF6is81xpAGiUxfw3KTShMww-- --===============0542454945041768596== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- --===============0542454945041768596==-- From pld+bncBCOYDX7L4IHBBKFK2CJQKGQEIDMTGQQ@cs.luc.edu Fri Nov 01 15:55:05 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-vc0-f200.google.com (mail-vc0-f200.google.com [209.85.220.200]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44E801832F for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 15:55:05 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f200.google.com with SMTP id ht10sf8824854vcb.11 for ; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:55:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:from:to:subject:thread-topic :thread-index:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :mime-version:cc:precedence:list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive :list-post:list-help:list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :content-language:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2WkqEDmkQb5ODRbAMyRtPbtXObrW2ivNEeG1ngc0ZPQ=; b=Gvu9WNt+JIFnD9gQE6hSvto2xnOdCSmzsbhw8lUIx0JrkE7HCbo83Q+gpgl9EikDdS pmR88xmwDCEpo/nGmnFYduXcbPq4Y/OH2KHImNStNoCrmnyGs0rKLXFMn67og0DiMQIU 5YOS5udOjonqEfrxziZiC4Kq00vSvy87yOfsu06S/DlhdJSlM91Q/4loYF0NN17+LXm1 nGROoc1opP0blv4/quv00vsYhkKXoiUymD/vsiWQt1YwlISA+gE2wv1o8rhD6dq6Psv+ L+CydTMOD++sZf1ZWepG+sPTpLBxijvc1jJqKw6sEkb7DZV6Qm6+04Z3vQjxLPcFOeim mHlg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmDpfWZs5DgM0C8dRBrjoQPw9PjthObmKIkwLMrGnrhGa6mWhbEMS/4B2SE/4XJoimRGke7 X-Received: by 10.236.209.202 with SMTP id s50mr2106340yho.40.1383339304786; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:55:04 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.182.117.164 with SMTP id kf4ls1013551obb.15.gmail; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:55:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.106.4 with SMTP id gq4mr4040931obb.4.1383339304656; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:55:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-f71.google.com (mail-oa0-f71.google.com [209.85.219.71]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id kz4si5176176oeb.38.2013.11.01.13.55.03 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:55:03 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCOYDX7L4IHBBJ5K2CJQKGQEUHLCX4Q@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-oa0-f71.google.com with SMTP id j6sf14770969oag.2 for ; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:55:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.111.227 with SMTP id il3mr1050563obb.41.1383339303613; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:55:03 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.238.129 with SMTP id vk1ls626503igc.42.gmail; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:55:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.65.134 with SMTP id x6mr4982879pas.142.1383339303404; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:55:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id gl1si5683232pac.314.2013.11.01.13.55.03 for ; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:55:03 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6DA011E8179; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:55:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B95411E8146 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:55:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jmN1QHMgRkxf for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:54:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com (slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com [130.76.64.129]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D127011E813D for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:54:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id rA1Kssrw015612 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:54:54 -0700 Received: from XCH-PHX-107.sw.nos.boeing.com (xch-phx-107.sw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.238.10]) by slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id rA1KssCa015609 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:54:54 -0700 Received: from XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.6.120]) by XCH-PHX-107.sw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.2.243]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:54:54 -0700 From: "Manfredi, Albert E" To: Brian Haberman Subject: RE: Why /64 Thread-Topic: Why /64 Thread-Index: AQHO1v7IB/yghD8940SkW9z+LgGPCZoQ4WcA///t46CAAHqSAP//i+sQ Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 20:54:53 +0000 Message-ID: <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFEF2@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <526E91A3.8000807@alvarezp.ods.org> <526F888E.20609@gmail.com> <52702A06.2040102@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AF4FE@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <52717006.5000806@gmail.com> <5271EFCF.6000101@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFB99@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFBC7@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <20131101003900.A95A1966953@rock.dv.isc.org> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFCAF@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing. com> <52739FF6.3050307@innovationslab.net> <1A94EDA2-CD70-41A6-A5AC-D0BCED8C3127@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFEA7@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.co m> <52740F7A.4050900@innovationslab.net> In-Reply-To: <52740F7A.4050900@innovationslab.net> Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-MML: disable Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org List IPv6" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCOYDX7L4IHBBJ5K2CJQKGQEUHLCX4Q@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBCOYDX7L4IHBBJ5K2CJQKGQEUHLCX4Q@math.luc.edu Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 68 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 1645 > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Haberman [mailto:brian@innovationslab.net] > For things like automobiles I am not sure why you need more than one > subnet, but OK. Because for many reasons, you will want to split out the different systems into their own subnets. For instance, engine controls would want to be separated and firewall protected from, say, the onboard entertainment net, from the windows and seat adjustment net, from the internal and exterior lighting nets, from the ABS and stability control, and so on. Primarily this has to be done for safety, but it also allows the different system vendors to design a system which can then be dropped into any vehicle, without affecting the other subsystems. The global addressing is useful for software updates and for vehicle-to-infrastructure comms (those comms which wouldn't strictly be done at layer 2 only for the shortest range needs). Systems like OnStar do some of this already, on a smaller scale of course, using telephone numbers as the globally unique address. You get a fairly comprehensive report card on your car periodically, from OnStar. This could be taken a whole lot further. And for some fixes, e.g. for recalls that have to do with reflashing ROM, it's conceivable that updates could be done remotely (when the car is stopped, of course, which would be easy enough to determine remotely). Bert -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCE5ZRV5VACRB7VQ2CJQKGQEXHUCX4I@cs.luc.edu Fri Nov 01 16:09:19 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-pa0-f71.google.com (mail-pa0-f71.google.com [209.85.220.71]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 482B618EEC for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 16:09:19 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-pa0-f71.google.com with SMTP id fa1sf7797361pad.6 for ; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 14:09:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:content-type:sender:errors-to:mailing-list :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results; bh=EnPzNjGrZh2zdGlqxi+tPDypahR/6UyWLL1xWmuAqxo=; b=fP3OUKltLxwVw1p7PhHYTKK2UjZeik3wXQZgyu+aPLZqUKsLIyzOXQzfO8PGXzPmaB TOcPU7xD/dhtBPldeSw+zss0EYY7nQrdRj2EiQcMW1Y7PAPdauwlStD6n7255rjgs2VL KVtqNCbCWzgo1xCdyjh4YkXV7tLWWMgT7dYJzkRseL34zeyj8I5jmW8vHNvBUQElri7X DRUS/JPdNFEoT7y4or1eTcywb58F1ouABMnZrVzqPqMXHhOKXzkH2IvZgbt9hkNmwWzq Z0BFxf9ZZigqw/03iy4tZ8t5WyqvADXYrMqa72U57wZNjvH5cYN1tx/arc3cpPCBo0TZ Hrhg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnBm0mXhZmfRz69Dr01R4xu+c7J91obWK2RgfndZRcSRkUCOtwLBXSbPMLl8VBJPvYrJIFY X-Received: by 10.66.117.170 with SMTP id kf10mr1078691pab.35.1383340158376; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 14:09:18 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.111.167 with SMTP id ij7ls605921igb.39.gmail; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 14:09:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.4.130 with SMTP id k2mr5010930pak.95.1383340158062; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 14:09:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-f72.google.com (mail-pa0-f72.google.com [209.85.220.72]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ru9si5399133pbc.288.2013.11.01.14.09.17 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 01 Nov 2013 14:09:17 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCE5ZRV5VACRB7NQ2CJQKGQERGHGLEY@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-pa0-f72.google.com with SMTP id rd3sf7805580pab.11 for ; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 14:09:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.227.103 with SMTP id rz7mr1542306pac.18.1383340157466; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 14:09:17 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.124.103 with SMTP id mh7ls607605igb.44.gmail; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 14:09:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.142.193 with SMTP id ry1mr5143146pab.150.1383340157202; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 14:09:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id sg3si5394838pbb.313.2013.11.01.14.09.17 for ; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 14:09:17 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 401E821E808A; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 14:09:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C37F21E808A for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 14:09:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YVaJ6NLwG9XL for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 14:09:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69F9121E80B7 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 14:09:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72984880F3; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 14:09:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Littlejohn.local (c-69-140-213-249.hsd1.md.comcast.net [69.140.213.249]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE3E1130003; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 14:09:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <52741865.4050606@innovationslab.net> Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 17:08:53 -0400 From: Brian Haberman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Manfredi, Albert E" Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52717006.5000806@gmail.com> <5271EFCF.6000101@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFB99@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFBC7@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <20131101003900.A95A1966953@rock.dv.isc.org> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFCAF@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing. com> <52739FF6.3050307@innovationslab.net> <1A94EDA2-CD70-41A6-A5AC-D0BCED8C3127@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFEA7@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.co m> <52740F7A.4050900@innovationslab.net> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFEF2@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> In-Reply-To: <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFEF2@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org List IPv6" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3908157194380973016==" Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: brian@innovationslab.net X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCE5ZRV5VACRB7NQ2CJQKGQERGHGLEY@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBCE5ZRV5VACRB7NQ2CJQKGQERGHGLEY@math.luc.edu X-UID: 69 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 2721 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --===============3908157194380973016== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qQ8WVdLWGcA9GJA0ivUOmFHkit2vsFieC" This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --qQ8WVdLWGcA9GJA0ivUOmFHkit2vsFieC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 11/1/13 4:54 PM, Manfredi, Albert E wrote: >> -----Original Message----- From: Brian Haberman >> [mailto:brian@innovationslab.net] >=20 >> For things like automobiles I am not sure why you need more than >> one subnet, but OK. >=20 > Because for many reasons, you will want to split out the different > systems into their own subnets. For instance, engine controls would > want to be separated and firewall protected from, say, the onboard > entertainment net, from the windows and seat adjustment net, from the > internal and exterior lighting nets, from the ABS and stability > control, and so on. Primarily this has to be done for safety, but it > also allows the different system vendors to design a system which can > then be dropped into any vehicle, without affecting the other > subsystems. I think that it is critical that control functions related to the operation of the vehicle be physically separated from networks being used by on-board users. That separation is probably why we view the addressing scheme differently. Regards, Brian H. --qQ8WVdLWGcA9GJA0ivUOmFHkit2vsFieC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.20 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJSdBhrAAoJEBOZRqCi7goqKyIH/jFuVyiqaSM6xy0/eUzfRwQv 1eKrGgLJb1IY/IXgtoQHFFACTth79YBVnT4WQfNvp3/RLgU6RD+yya9JxPAzbFN8 POG8DIqKiXvk0MSIgo/H3XytBMc9mq655pE142TZRF8zNLzpu3fEMKIsvXDCOIzz 1MFylvvQKgC3I0CEy4AW/2R6NPuQ+09DiOrSb6/9nNPqWRFWFina7nsPjfCNVO61 STGwa14mtsEl4bpA/z+kZegnLAAfXj5cv5nRNScoyIPxQRSACJBivIjlGNCckWgl rCRrQRu93PIFNTcsR2l5n3pSpw0fhe27uhdP5OomLbFE+Ejfq4r0Kb8DKxnYVk0= =GMjh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --qQ8WVdLWGcA9GJA0ivUOmFHkit2vsFieC-- --===============3908157194380973016== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- --===============3908157194380973016==-- From pld+bncBDS7VJEBYEHBBHNB2GJQKGQE45DBFKQ@cs.luc.edu Fri Nov 01 20:08:46 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-ve0-f198.google.com (mail-ve0-f198.google.com [209.85.128.198]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1D6618EEC for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 20:08:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-ve0-f198.google.com with SMTP id c14sf536330vea.1 for ; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:08:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:user-agent:date:subject:from:to :message-id:thread-topic:in-reply-to:mime-version:precedence:list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe :sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=a4woPBR3A9cFE2kPMOSpTOoad2HVV9kJ0giMdDRQIOw=; b=DNhz4triqmh2Iwn4TEwbJD2031EHke93DIZWElFXxshp0oCSP34kojis3b7dLqzHb9 WKv/mihWh5H7k4arH94M9w2AIP4BTuSRHyXdeUdTkNHKosgVfMnoW6mZENKAluKtcD+B qXSlvB/nESpwt/yirNn/5toP5+qy/CaMt6iDKf4lUezIZOTLNnQhdXgfBFARq2C/zLL2 oc6sJxMt2qUjABSiN6sjcxpdw7Kk7xXnsXT9DzEdSCt3Xp90ZIQ4a1nNj8N6VwVfQNV7 OSKasnmS1kqXVmWwwkZY4Onagygjg6V6A5p446aEVn7pKkPkh9lq0sVCLeYT5dO8A7B5 n5pA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkYm197yZnFCoxWaIjOzr/Lq6PqLth+sFC7ZoSTxlBgEx0Qv0rt6wtjCgKx1kwSEVQf7OaW X-Received: by 10.52.64.177 with SMTP id p17mr1600324vds.3.1383354525551; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:08:45 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.239.165 with SMTP id vt5ls695863igc.6.gmail; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:08:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.42.18.136 with SMTP id x8mr3599977ica.11.1383354525265; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:08:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-f200.google.com (mail-ie0-f200.google.com [209.85.223.200]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ow5si9867764icc.38.2013.11.01.18.08.44 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:08:44 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDS7VJEBYEHBBHFB2GJQKGQEQT3ZV7A@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-ie0-f200.google.com with SMTP id aq17sf14518252iec.3 for ; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:08:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.42.104.195 with SMTP id s3mr1708641ico.0.1383354524775; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:08:44 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.136.198 with SMTP id qc6ls670780igb.42.canary; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:08:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.102.100 with SMTP id fn4mr5867771pab.71.1383354524273; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:08:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id fk10si6066431pab.116.2013.11.01.18.08.44 for ; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:08:44 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A43C511E810C; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 18:08:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6218211E810C for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 18:08:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9rolSQlKkk8t for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 18:08:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-f43.google.com (mail-qa0-f43.google.com [209.85.216.43]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE07321E80F8 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 18:08:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id i13so1015652qae.9 for ; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:08:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.224.147.208 with SMTP id m16mr7445972qav.3.1383354516461; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:08:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.100.52] ([67.224.83.162]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id x10sm27152458qas.5.2013.11.01.18.08.32 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:08:35 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.10.0.110310 Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 21:08:28 -0400 Subject: Re: Why /64 From: Victor Kuarsingh To: Karl Auer , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Why /64 In-Reply-To: <1383274385.3347.35.camel@karl> Mime-version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: victor@jvknet.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDS7VJEBYEHBBHFB2GJQKGQEQT3ZV7A@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBDS7VJEBYEHBBHFB2GJQKGQEQT3ZV7A@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 70 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 3916 On 2013-10-31 10:53 PM, "Karl Auer" wrote: >On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 00:59 +0000, Manfredi, Albert E wrote: >> Why would you need 2^64 IIDs for a subnet of neighborhood streetlights, >>for instance? > >I don't know. But the key thing is that I don't need to. When I ask for >a glass of water at a restaurant, I do not know or care how many water >molecules I'm buying, either. It doesn't *matter*. > >No-one ever seems to consider the *advantages* of the "/64 everywhere" >approach. They decry the "waste" without looking at what that "waste" is >buying: I think this is a very important point. I think many (as did I at first), attempt to rationalize how much space we are wasting, then over time realized the operational and practical benefits of a standard subnet size (ops hat on). > >- everything is the same. No more calculating (leaf) subnet sizes, no >more stealing from Peter to pay Paul, no more getting it wrong - every >subnet is a /64. > > > >- there are *always* enough addresses in *any* subnet for you add one >more device. Or even a hundred. You might run into other limits, but the >addressing will never get in your way. > >- adding a subnet is easy - just take the next /64. No estimates, >calculations, consideration or judgement needed. There has been significant simplification on how IP address space in operator networks (and I suspect other places) is now deployed. In my experience, this simplification also applied our management network side (akin to Enterprise network structure). A significant amount of operational effort is expended in IPv4 sizing, and re-sizing address blocks. I understand that having sizes like /80 may still be big enough not to require re-sizing - but /64 sure seems like enough for almost any subnet zone we can contemplate. I am sure, maybe one day we will have a new use case decades from now, but assuming that more prefixes (using smaller blocks) will satisfy this unknown requirement is a stretch. What we do know is that there is signifiant benefits from standard subnets sizes today deploying IPv6 for the first time. > >- your router configs are easier to understand > >- your documentation is easier to write and easier to read. > Not only is the documentation easy and less prone to error (which is an endless battle with IPv4), it also greatly simplifies security configuration and policy. Working with variable subnet lengths adds complexity to the design and management process in networks. I am not saying that these points should stop us from considering other subnet lengths, but as noted by Karl above, we should evenly weigh the operational advantages. Lastly, I have not actually seen a convincing problem statement for this (similar to Erik's comments earlier in the thread). I have seen many what-if statements, but perhaps a clearly written draft with some use cases may be helpful (I did not find the car example very compelling since I can just assign a /56 or /48 to the care if multiple subnets are required there). Regards, Victor K > > >Regards, K. > >-- >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au) >http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer >http://twitter.com/kauer389 > >GPG fingerprint: B862 FB15 FE96 4961 BC62 1A40 6239 1208 9865 5F9A >Old fingerprint: AE1D 4868 6420 AD9A A698 5251 1699 7B78 4EEE 6017 > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >ipv6@ietf.org >Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >-------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld@cs.luc.edu Sat Nov 02 10:58:47 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from lukasiewicz.cs.luc.edu (lukasiewicz.cs.luc.edu [147.126.65.57]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC40B17C68 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 10:58:47 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [10.0.0.5] (ulam2 [147.126.65.47]) by lukasiewicz.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 77D3E6A237; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 10:58:47 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <52752137.6060805@cs.luc.edu> Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 10:58:47 -0500 From: Peter Dordal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ipv6@ietf.org List IPv6" CC: Peter Dordal Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <526E91A3.8000807@alvarezp.ods.org> <526F888E.20609@gmail.com> <52702A06.2040102@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AF4FE@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <52717006.5000806@gmail.com> <5271EFCF.6000101@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFB99@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFBC7@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <20131101003900.A95A1966953@rock.dv.isc.org> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFCAF@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing. com> <52739FF6.3050307@innovationslab.net> <1A94EDA2-CD70-41A6-A5AC-D0BCED8C3127@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFEA7@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.co m> In-Reply-To: <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFEA7@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 71 Status: O X-Keywords: NonJunk Content-Length: 1377 I draw attention to the following from RFC4291, emphasis added: For all unicast addresses, **except those that start with the binary value 000**, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long This goes back to RFC 2373, though not to RFC 1884. As far as I can make out, the 64-bit IID length comes from SLAAC; DHCP6 is perfectly fine with obtaining a /96 (or even /120) prefix and handing out host addresses within that space. If the concern is that /64 leaves us with not enough address bits, one approach would be to revisit the need for SLAAC. That would be controversial, though perhaps not as controversial as a few years ago. But another approach is to observe that some different IID strategy can be used within the 0::/3 block mentioned above by RFC 4291. For example, the 1000::/8 block could be required to use 32-bit IIDs. This would leave 2^88 address prefixes, 16 million times the 2^64 prefixes available with /64. And perhaps the 1100::/8 block could use 12-bit IIDs, and so on. Holding back even a modest fraction of the address space from the /64 rule, in other words, is quite effective insurance against unanticipated future needs for light bulbs and sensor motes. Finally, I do remain concerned that if the prefix length is entirely at the discretion of the ISP, then some of us will end up with /128. Peter Dordal Loyola University Chicago From pld+bncBC6JRKUP6MDBBIUE2WJQKGQEF7ESMAI@cs.luc.edu Sat Nov 02 13:19:15 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-yh0-f71.google.com (mail-yh0-f71.google.com [209.85.213.71]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C62318123 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 13:19:15 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-yh0-f71.google.com with SMTP id f64sf1687474yha.2 for ; Sat, 02 Nov 2013 11:19:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-transfer-encoding :content-type; bh=Ylp3n1Nfy7d3i204B0hGDacBZ4GNe7/Koem7CFQhNQ8=; b=fVoOQ1LLQrkgGfm+XHQfRd0BSaWF04uYEe4fzCJyG+BJOU0zxEPQQCEmdeMey30I+A IG+wIS3XRHGkNlyUA+UFn99/tf+b4A7qz50i0IHw2qGuIIWeiTa4vMOU6hRijkVA52Lb ShscahcIPU+6tytSvep+IAeE1Orx7bDGH6TJ08sxWPWOMbPV4BskdRZdi7lTudmonXaz tVEA71j53C/IJ16mB408odR713anLDJm0UA8TDt2xs1ZBB7S6BQebkf4O3bTLUEqOwzk BVj41GFeEKmaYzbmsaSJVkUCtKkz+ZEu8P7Rzy63V1qkyA7K1Vu1DkCN7739/qSQruCF 86UA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnQPy/GKsM+U5Hc393v04OAzIn80QtWA4mU05lvCRXfTFazK+DUovuR6nAQxqSfzres8VdL X-Received: by 10.236.135.211 with SMTP id u59mr4222398yhi.43.1383416354891; Sat, 02 Nov 2013 11:19:14 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.49.110.5 with SMTP id hw5ls1789171qeb.56.gmail; Sat, 02 Nov 2013 11:19:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.236.93.140 with SMTP id l12mr6642773yhf.66.1383416354795; Sat, 02 Nov 2013 11:19:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yh0-f69.google.com (mail-yh0-f69.google.com [209.85.213.69]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z5si2948014yhk.379.2013.11.02.11.19.13 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 02 Nov 2013 11:19:13 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBC6JRKUP6MDBBIME2WJQKGQEOKZCVKQ@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-yh0-f69.google.com with SMTP id v1sf1682649yhn.4 for ; Sat, 02 Nov 2013 11:19:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.58.94.77 with SMTP id da13mr2897455veb.1.1383416353462; Sat, 02 Nov 2013 11:19:13 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.73.106 with SMTP id k10ls855740igv.3.gmail; Sat, 02 Nov 2013 11:19:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.130.234 with SMTP id oh10mr9339777pbb.0.1383416353193; Sat, 02 Nov 2013 11:19:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id ws5si7388265pab.122.2013.11.02.11.19.13 for ; Sat, 02 Nov 2013 11:19:13 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9377111E821B; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 11:19:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63C0C11E8162 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 08:59:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qCnx94rO+MXk for ; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 08:59:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lukasiewicz.cs.luc.edu (lukasiewicz.cs.luc.edu [147.126.65.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C97711E816F for ; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 08:58:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.0.5] (ulam2 [147.126.65.47]) by lukasiewicz.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 77D3E6A237; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 10:58:47 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <52752137.6060805@cs.luc.edu> Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 10:58:47 -0500 From: Peter Dordal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ipv6@ietf.org List IPv6" Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <526E91A3.8000807@alvarezp.ods.org> <526F888E.20609@gmail.com> <52702A06.2040102@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AF4FE@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <52717006.5000806@gmail.com> <5271EFCF.6000101@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFB99@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFBC7@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <20131101003900.A95A1966953@rock.dv.isc.org> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFCAF@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing. com> <52739FF6.3050307@innovationslab.net> <1A94EDA2-CD70-41A6-A5AC-D0BCED8C3127@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFEA7@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.co m> In-Reply-To: <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFEA7@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 11:19:10 -0700 Cc: Peter Dordal X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pld@cs.luc.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBC6JRKUP6MDBBIME2WJQKGQEOKZCVKQ@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBC6JRKUP6MDBBIME2WJQKGQEOKZCVKQ@math.luc.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" X-UID: 72 Status: O X-Keywords: NonJunk Content-Length: 1635 I draw attention to the following from RFC4291, emphasis added: For all unicast addresses, **except those that start with the binary value 000**, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long This goes back to RFC 2373, though not to RFC 1884. As far as I can make out, the 64-bit IID length comes from SLAAC; DHCP6 is perfectly fine with obtaining a /96 (or even /120) prefix and handing out host addresses within that space. If the concern is that /64 leaves us with not enough address bits, one approach would be to revisit the need for SLAAC. That would be controversial, though perhaps not as controversial as a few years ago. But another approach is to observe that some different IID strategy can be used within the 0::/3 block mentioned above by RFC 4291. For example, the 1000::/8 block could be required to use 32-bit IIDs. This would leave 2^88 address prefixes, 16 million times the 2^64 prefixes available with /64. And perhaps the 1100::/8 block could use 12-bit IIDs, and so on. Holding back even a modest fraction of the address space from the /64 rule, in other words, is quite effective insurance against unanticipated future needs for light bulbs and sensor motes. Finally, I do remain concerned that if the prefix length is entirely at the discretion of the ISP, then some of us will end up with /128. Peter Dordal Loyola University Chicago -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCYIPENUQUCBB7VY2WJQKGQE6NPBRQI@cs.luc.edu Sat Nov 02 15:11:44 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-lb0-f198.google.com (mail-lb0-f198.google.com [209.85.217.198]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4AF31832F for ; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 15:11:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-lb0-f198.google.com with SMTP id w6sf7477846lbh.1 for ; Sat, 02 Nov 2013 13:11:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent :mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=dD+9rtp/xxYCcBPt9JxhKJ7jG+hdF3ljx53QK08iols=; b=CQcgZKhMql2kdjKuWVFFwOe1nqfDP4ubGQ7ZivWnKGG2JWrQfXtm+c7eNJfXf2N3m3 vMtVJ099K3J1EW5AwOG+1D8ejBCJDD0yQhJoBJIbwiQ8u87huhTQTYLy4LovTK93p6Ne QnW54tDyExAxSoAGUOoEqpqoh79lBOBH/e2DeWitxWPuTADi7GopmKyvpgnmWpEZ0rH+ +vtnYp3hXsdYNw5sydE8rqhJyTswu+SFRi7glPl5CAHbp7ZxdDCiLuiIay5D6MCL+kHP AghBk5PQ5MbtxHr7AiuKLkO9EF7vmzZijJP5g8YH+qCu4MD3RHz+KG0LZiA8XEf13ESA Ar2g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnS3YNnmRjkRwa7x2pc1QzzB2iwnS3FyEHwBqwwb56nlfFj35Eb/qx128A7gZzSrs6iE4fd X-Received: by 10.180.210.242 with SMTP id mx18mr3541806wic.6.1383423102157; Sat, 02 Nov 2013 13:11:42 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.180.92.162 with SMTP id cn2ls304236wib.15.gmail; Sat, 02 Nov 2013 13:11:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.204.227.140 with SMTP id ja12mr439256bkb.29.1383423101864; Sat, 02 Nov 2013 13:11:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bk0-x235.google.com (mail-bk0-x235.google.com [2a00:1450:4008:c01::235]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ks5si1958408bkb.266.2013.11.02.13.11.41 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 02 Nov 2013 13:11:41 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4008:c01::235 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4008:c01::235; Received: by mail-bk0-f53.google.com with SMTP id w11so1847666bkz.26 for ; Sat, 02 Nov 2013 13:11:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.205.87.12 with SMTP id au12mr465145bkc.34.1383423101442; Sat, 02 Nov 2013 13:11:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [31.133.149.19] (dhcp-9513.meeting.ietf.org. [31.133.149.19]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id b7sm9647320bkg.1.2013.11.02.13.11.39 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 02 Nov 2013 13:11:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <52755C7A.1020800@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 09:11:38 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Dordal CC: "ipv6@ietf.org List IPv6" Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <526F888E.20609@gmail.com> <52702A06.2040102@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AF4FE@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <52717006.5000806@gmail.com> <5271EFCF.6000101@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFB99@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFBC7@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <20131101003900.A95A1966953@rock.dv.isc.org> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFCAF@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing. com> <52739FF6.3050307@innovationslab.net> <1A94EDA2-CD70-41A6-A5AC-D0BCED8C3127@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4AFEA7@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.co m> <52752137.6060805@cs.luc.edu> In-Reply-To: <52752137.6060805@cs.luc.edu> X-Original-Sender: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4008:c01::235 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 73 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 1708 On 03/11/2013 04:58, Peter Dordal wrote: > I draw attention to the following from RFC4291, emphasis added: > > For all unicast addresses, **except those that start with the binary > value 000**, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long > > This goes back to RFC 2373, though not to RFC 1884. > > As far as I can make out, the 64-bit IID length comes from SLAAC; > DHCP6 is perfectly fine with obtaining a /96 (or even /120) prefix > and handing out host addresses within that space. > > If the concern is that /64 leaves us with not enough address bits, > one approach would be to revisit the need for SLAAC. That would be > controversial, though perhaps not as controversial as a few years ago. There's another thread that shows that it's still highly controversial, over on v6ops. > > But another approach is to observe that some different IID strategy > can be used within the 0::/3 block mentioned above by RFC 4291. Actually we have even more flexibility than that, since the only prefix that is available for GUA is 2000::/3. That's where our stock of 35 trillion /48s resides. (2**45 = 35,184,372,088,832) In other words, even if we leave 0::/3 and 2000::/3 exactly as they are, we still have three-quarters of the address space completely untouched - and that was intentional, in case we mess up. Since I expect 35 trillion /48s to last for several centuries, assuming we continue to apply CIDR wisely throughout 2000::/64, I truly don't lose sleep over any of this. ... > Finally, I do remain concerned that if the prefix length is > entirely at the discretion of the ISP, then some of us will > end up with /128. Absolutely. I would lose sleep over that. Brian Carpenter From pld+bncBCC77QGWVMIRBTH526JQKGQERZYPOMA@cs.luc.edu Sun Nov 03 01:44:13 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-pb0-f72.google.com (mail-pb0-f72.google.com [209.85.160.72]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C84D18EEC for ; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 01:44:13 -0600 (CST) Received: by mail-pb0-f72.google.com with SMTP id jt11sf10472362pbb.11 for ; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 00:44:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=OcHBVcfoUNrkxrW5f7ZPhW5F0RwGZwMXFNvZngkmjT0=; b=gY+rUj68yGt2AdDNvNYu3Adx6/P4s2Soay9QhIr37R7/l3O4Y2E1k5RL87ivgARcYV Wr/cHNfIruQIdVCszTovM83XfXvhUerEiP97JgjLV1z+B2hiljKAVpIAR0ySacz7H1+V quqYiLVehX+/cSKwFTZv2ipJSABzoe++tG5beOqFQL2zDJO2loLPfHfbmg3ge/D3XzMp k1rcn/jupQdtMixvL3lqPRHjVRGiia46rwYqX05nb8i6M6+tJw7C+cn8QW+b+ey5jrno ob6+VxxAgU53CHlUzwU0USMeqkkrf59289N7YpdkI7Xh9OsTb/DkTYeqO67aJnYBLMg7 f+cw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmTl8y3cAC4arG5ajgZxUEI+XDyZ0No2DiCs/aVyIuR3T+SXemGPHAH3S8Jp+UGVAeJUpll X-Received: by 10.66.102.100 with SMTP id fn4mr1881pab.47.1383464652593; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 00:44:12 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.22.99 with SMTP id c3ls1014790igf.7.canary; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 00:44:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.85.115 with SMTP id g19mr8143253igz.1.1383464652253; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 00:44:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-f198.google.com (mail-ie0-f198.google.com [209.85.223.198]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id mr5si9576628icc.67.2013.11.03.00.44.11 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 03 Nov 2013 00:44:11 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBS7526JQKGQE3L2PSVA@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-ie0-f198.google.com with SMTP id tp5sf17785836ieb.1 for ; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 00:44:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.111.134 with SMTP id ii6mr3146628obb.38.1383464651752; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 00:44:11 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.67.84 with SMTP id l20ls555961igt.18.gmail; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 00:44:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.191.106 with SMTP id gx10mr11546593pbc.47.1383464651143; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 00:44:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id gj2si8274844pac.109.2013.11.03.00.44.10 for ; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 00:44:10 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A605611E80F2; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 00:44:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02F2D11E80E4 for ; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 00:44:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dmghBd56buyw for ; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 00:44:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from globis01.globis.net (RayH-1-pt.tunnel.tserv11.ams1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f14:62e::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C45AE11E80EA for ; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 00:44:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8049B870F93; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 08:44:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from globis01.globis.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.globis.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8js5kB0VR6-v; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 08:44:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from Rays-iMac-2.local (unknown [192.168.0.3]) (Authenticated sender: Ray.Hunter@globis.net) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 49749870078; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 08:44:01 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <5275FEBF.30909@globis.net> Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 08:43:59 +0100 From: Ray Hunter User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.8 (Macintosh/20130427) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Victor Kuarsingh Subject: Re: Re: Why /64 References: In-Reply-To: Cc: ipv6@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pld@math.luc.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBS7526JQKGQE3L2PSVA@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBAABBS7526JQKGQE3L2PSVA@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 74 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 4621 Victor Kuarsingh wrote: > On 2013-10-31 10:53 PM, "Karl Auer" wrote: > >> On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 00:59 +0000, Manfredi, Albert E wrote: >>> Why would you need 2^64 IIDs for a subnet of neighborhood streetlights, >>> for instance? >> I don't know. But the key thing is that I don't need to. When I ask for >> a glass of water at a restaurant, I do not know or care how many water >> molecules I'm buying, either. It doesn't *matter*. >> >> No-one ever seems to consider the *advantages* of the "/64 everywhere" >> approach. They decry the "waste" without looking at what that "waste" is >> buying: > > I think this is a very important point. I think many (as did I at first), > attempt to rationalize how much space we are wasting, then over time > realized the operational and practical benefits of a standard subnet size > (ops hat on). > >> - everything is the same. No more calculating (leaf) subnet sizes, no >> more stealing from Peter to pay Paul, no more getting it wrong - every >> subnet is a /64. >> >> >> >> - there are *always* enough addresses in *any* subnet for you add one >> more device. Or even a hundred. You might run into other limits, but the >> addressing will never get in your way. >> >> - adding a subnet is easy - just take the next /64. No estimates, >> calculations, consideration or judgement needed. > > > > There has been significant simplification on how IP address space in > operator networks (and I suspect other places) is now deployed. In my > experience, this simplification also applied our management network side > (akin to Enterprise network structure). A significant amount of > operational effort is expended in IPv4 sizing, and re-sizing address > blocks. I understand that having sizes like /80 may still be big enough > not to require re-sizing - but /64 sure seems like enough for almost any > subnet zone we can contemplate. I am sure, maybe one day we will have a > new use case decades from now, but assuming that more prefixes (using > smaller blocks) will satisfy this unknown requirement is a stretch. > > What we do know is that there is signifiant benefits from standard subnets > sizes today deploying IPv6 for the first time. > >> - your router configs are easier to understand >> >> - your documentation is easier to write and easier to read. >> > > Not only is the documentation easy and less prone to error (which is an > endless battle with IPv4), it also greatly simplifies security > configuration and policy. Working with variable subnet lengths adds > complexity to the design and management process in networks. > > > I am not saying that these points should stop us from considering other > subnet lengths, but as noted by Karl above, we should evenly weigh the > operational advantages. > > Lastly, I have not actually seen a convincing problem statement for this > (similar to Erik's comments earlier in the thread). I have seen many > what-if statements, but perhaps a clearly written draft with some use > cases may be helpful (I did not find the car example very compelling since > I can just assign a /56 or /48 to the care if multiple subnets are > required there). > > Regards, > > Victor K > How about http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6583? 6.2. Minimal Subnet Sizing By sizing subnets to reflect the number of addresses actually in use, the problem can be avoided. That breaks today's SLAAC. To your point that the case for dropping /64 is based mainly on "what if statements", AFAICS SLAAC is the only hard argument for maintaining /64. The rest of the points seem to be pretty soft operational arguments. I like these, but I don't think they stack up against a (potential) DDOS target. regards, >> Regards, K. >> >> -- >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au) >> http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer >> http://twitter.com/kauer389 >> >> GPG fingerprint: B862 FB15 FE96 4961 BC62 1A40 6239 1208 9865 5F9A >> Old fingerprint: AE1D 4868 6420 AD9A A698 5251 1699 7B78 4EEE 6017 >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >> ipv6@ietf.org >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -- Regards, RayH -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCC77QGWVMIRB4VN3CJQKGQECZLJCKY@cs.luc.edu Sun Nov 03 03:27:15 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-ie0-f198.google.com (mail-ie0-f198.google.com [209.85.223.198]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E005018F08 for ; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 03:27:14 -0600 (CST) Received: by mail-ie0-f198.google.com with SMTP id tp5sf17956711ieb.5 for ; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 01:27:14 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=gPs9hylaT9Jns1dHKQEdcvcdD9ipi59N2Kw5YFGu/4c=; b=hwIVvZccoHlMP5OjK02DBs8vPGgpxXDb/oR2GYeNSZ6382ms/Un1E60q37aNi/zE5j nMjMX640KhEzWEh80ueipJLsN0OBkE0uypz7GDk3AvgqiyyiVqtokK1GBlXtcroSzRPB JFOkSwamfxJKltxywUy3Aep2LuPudH0lt/GT38Ghwp2YzMtN000lzcZZ2hsa0hn9ggfM Tt2fyU6egD6Kc5vBE6aFLCJ7+iRKOH6KxTQu7ZW79CVf36SO4iRgsSZyHGLN31GS155c ejrzxCJV81qOPvHxO637OHvoNOjwT/vv6X9dmaRFWZ+CDQZVyxuy8ANnJZ6SLrAmwVjR Ympg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlNks3LoKT+9flg5d0NYmB3onMzvA/jhBq6QtPU7WdTJnmZPDgFmcPrxVvPMPVudU6rcttK X-Received: by 10.182.34.169 with SMTP id a9mr18814obj.49.1383470834666; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 01:27:14 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.49.129.166 with SMTP id nx6ls1878723qeb.12.gmail; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 01:27:14 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.220.169.203 with SMTP id a11mr320489vcz.26.1383470834480; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 01:27:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vc0-f198.google.com (mail-vc0-f198.google.com [209.85.220.198]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id mj10si3983564vcb.12.2013.11.03.01.27.14 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 03 Nov 2013 01:27:14 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABB4VN3CJQKGQEAIWVM7Q@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-vc0-f198.google.com with SMTP id hu19sf11277610vcb.9 for ; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 01:27:14 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.236.209.202 with SMTP id s50mr5170087yho.40.1383470834150; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 01:27:14 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.67.48 with SMTP id k16ls1098599igt.40.gmail; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 01:27:13 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.68.216.132 with SMTP id oq4mr12069874pbc.50.1383470833816; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 01:27:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id iu9si8388417pac.89.2013.11.03.01.27.13 for ; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 01:27:13 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2960811E81CC; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 01:27:13 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B67521E8082 for ; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 01:27:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nfByXDCEv1J4 for ; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 01:27:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from globis01.globis.net (RayH-1-pt.tunnel.tserv11.ams1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f14:62e::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE01B11E8132 for ; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 01:27:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1363870F93; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 10:27:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from globis01.globis.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.globis.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Itxcm-E1ixz3; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 10:27:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from Rays-iMac-2.local (unknown [192.168.0.3]) (Authenticated sender: Ray.Hunter@globis.net) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 89482870049; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 10:27:05 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <527616E8.1010808@globis.net> Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 10:27:04 +0100 From: Ray Hunter User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.8 (Macintosh/20130427) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark ZZZ Smith Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <5275FEBF.30909@globis.net> <1383468097.76343.YahooMailNeo@web142501.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <1383468097.76343.YahooMailNeo@web142501.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pld@math.luc.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABB4VN3CJQKGQEAIWVM7Q@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBAABB4VN3CJQKGQEAIWVM7Q@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 75 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 10753 > Mark ZZZ Smith > 3 November 2013 09:41 > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Ray Hunter >> To: Victor Kuarsingh >> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org >> Sent: Sunday, 3 November 2013 6:43 PM >> Subject: Re: Re: Why /64 >> >> >> >> Victor Kuarsingh wrote: >>> On 2013-10-31 10:53 PM, "Karl Auer" >> wrote: >>>> On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 00:59 +0000, Manfredi, Albert E wrote: >>>>> Why would you need 2^64 IIDs for a subnet of neighborhood >> streetlights, >>>>> for instance? >>>> I don't know. But the key thing is that I don't need to. When I >> ask for >>>> a glass of water at a restaurant, I do not know or care how many water >>>> molecules I'm buying, either. It doesn't *matter*. >>>> >>>> No-one ever seems to consider the *advantages* of the "/64 >> everywhere" >>>> approach. They decry the "waste" without looking at what that >> "waste" is >>>> buying: >>> I think this is a very important point. I think many (as did I at first), >>> attempt to rationalize how much space we are wasting, then over time >>> realized the operational and practical benefits of a standard subnet size >>> (ops hat on). >>> >>>> - everything is the same. No more calculating (leaf) subnet sizes, no >>>> more stealing from Peter to pay Paul, no more getting it wrong - every >>>> subnet is a /64. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> - there are *always* enough addresses in *any* subnet for you add one >>>> more device. Or even a hundred. You might run into other limits, but >> the >>>> addressing will never get in your way. >>>> >>>> - adding a subnet is easy - just take the next /64. No estimates, >>>> calculations, consideration or judgement needed. >>> There has been significant simplification on how IP address space in >>> operator networks (and I suspect other places) is now deployed. In my >>> experience, this simplification also applied our management network side >>> (akin to Enterprise network structure). A significant amount of >>> operational effort is expended in IPv4 sizing, and re-sizing address >>> blocks. I understand that having sizes like /80 may still be big enough >>> not to require re-sizing - but /64 sure seems like enough for almost any >>> subnet zone we can contemplate. I am sure, maybe one day we will have a >>> new use case decades from now, but assuming that more prefixes (using >>> smaller blocks) will satisfy this unknown requirement is a stretch. >>> >>> What we do know is that there is signifiant benefits from standard subnets >>> sizes today deploying IPv6 for the first time. >>> >>>> - your router configs are easier to understand >>>> >>>> - your documentation is easier to write and easier to read. >>>> >>> Not only is the documentation easy and less prone to error (which is an >>> endless battle with IPv4), it also greatly simplifies security >>> configuration and policy. Working with variable subnet lengths adds >>> complexity to the design and management process in networks. >>> >>> >>> I am not saying that these points should stop us from considering other >>> subnet lengths, but as noted by Karl above, we should evenly weigh the >>> operational advantages. >>> >>> Lastly, I have not actually seen a convincing problem statement for this >>> (similar to Erik's comments earlier in the thread). I have seen many >>> what-if statements, but perhaps a clearly written draft with some use >>> cases may be helpful (I did not find the car example very compelling since >>> I can just assign a /56 or /48 to the care if multiple subnets are >>> required there). >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Victor K >>> >> How about http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6583? >> >> 6.2. Minimal Subnet Sizing >> >> By sizing subnets to reflect the number of addresses actually in use, >> the problem can be avoided. >> >> That breaks today's SLAAC. >> > > And it isn't acknowledging the costs or drawbacks of doing so. That advice is only practical for people who understand networking and are in a position to size/resize subnets. It is a way of containing the problem. What practical problem would there be if some Homenet router manufacturers shipped with /96 or /112 prefix length as default, instead of /64? [given that Homenet figures out little-conf] > It isn't appropriate for the dominant type of network - the home network "operated" by non-network operators. To cater for them, either IPv6 NAT will need to be deployed (and then operators will give out /128s) with /64s behind them (again achieving the simplicity of an "excessively" sized subnet, as has happened in residential networks with RFC1918s and IPv4 NAT), or automated methods to grow or shrink the number of addresses in a subnet will need to be developed and deployed. I think the latter option would be much better than IPv6 NAT, but much harder to develop and deploy. So a lot of the effort to restore end-to-end and to avoid the costs of NAT traversal we've seen in IPv4 will have been wasted. > I don't pretend to be able to predict the future. Allocating a single /64 per home is also harmful, because it prevents multiple prefixes in the home. However there's a significant difference to IPv4 history. IPv4 addresses were scarce. There was a commercial benefit to only allocating a /32. There is no commercial benefit to allocating a /128 instead of a /64 AFAICS. There is currently some technical benefit to delegating a single /64 AFAIK (due to broken implementations on the carrier side) which will hopefully go away over time. Enforcing use of SLAAC (a technical measure) to overcome delegation of a single /128 (bad operational practice) is an equally bad idea IMHO. And anyway, ISP's could enforce /128 allocations just as easily today if they really wanted to, even with the /64 barrier: either using dynamic ACL's and DHCPv6, or some other existing first hop security mechanism that limits the user to one IPv6 address per physical port. >> To your point that the case for dropping /64 is based mainly on "what if >> statements", AFAICS SLAAC is the only hard argument for maintaining /64. > > I think the benefits of things such as opaque IIDs are a hard argument. If subnets are shrunk down to the number of actual hosts attached, the level anonymity that opaque IIDs will provide disappear, as it would for existing "privacy addresses", and subnets become vulnerable to unsolicited ingress address scanning attacks again. There could still be opacity (at the prefix level, rather than at the LAN/host level) /64 is a really big number. The focus is ND today. In reality, anything anywhere that has to maintain any state whatsoever that is linked to an individual IPv6 address is a legitimate resource-exhaustion target. >> The rest of the points seem to be pretty soft operational arguments. I >> like these, but I don't think they stack up against a (potential) DDOS >> target. >> > > A DDoS on a neighbor cache is a resource exhaustion attack. If you can prevent the neighbor cache resources being totally exhausted, while still providing degraded service rather than a total denial of service, then I think the value of the this type of attack is significantly reduced. True. > My proposal, which Ray, Karl and others kindly reviewed and provided comments on, is to take advantage of IPv6's best-effort (or "unreliable") nature, and origin hosts' ability to recover from packet loss, by retransmitting. > > Mitigating IPv6 Neighbor Discovery DoS Attack Using Stateless Neighbor Presence Discovery > > Abstract One of the functions of IPv6 Neighbor Discovery is to discover whether a specified neighbor is present. During the neighbor presence discovery process state is created. A node's capacity for this state can be intentionally exhausted to perform a denial of service attack, known as the "Neighbor Discovery DoS Attack". This memo proposes a stateless form of neighbor presence discovery to prevent this Neighbor Discovery DoS Attack. > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-smith-6man-mitigate-nd-cache-dos-slnd-06 > > > It's not perfect, I think the only way to actually completely eliminate this neighbor cache vulnerability is to move to a node registration model (i.e., no "discovery" occurring). However there needs to be an interim solution, and I think the above would be reasonable. > > I've been meaning to get back to it for a while, to make some further minor changes. Otherwise I think it is at a point where I'd propose it for adoption. I'd be interested if others think it is worthwhile. > > Thanks, > Mark. I see these mechanisms as being complementary, rather than mutually exclusive. Limiting prefix length even a few bits longer than /64 could significantly reduce the difficulty of making an implementation resilient to resource exhaustion e.g. you could use a divide and conquer approach to rate limiting "in buckets" so that fewer nodes are under attack, whilst the total number of buckets you require for tracking can be limited to match your local hardware. That argument is equally valid for any device that has to track state linked to an individual IPv6 address (including firewalls, load balancers, translators, and a whole bunch of middleware boxes) I think insisting on a blanket /64 creates a problem elsewhere: we are then effectively saying that no device or protocol on the Internet can be stateful in any meaningful way at an individual IPv6 address level. > >> regards, >>>> Regards, K. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>> Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au) >>>> http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer >>>> http://twitter.com/kauer389 >>>> >>>> GPG fingerprint: B862 FB15 FE96 4961 BC62 1A40 6239 1208 9865 5F9A >>>> Old fingerprint: AE1D 4868 6420 AD9A A698 5251 1699 7B78 4EEE 6017 >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >>>> ipv6@ietf.org >>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> -- >> Regards, >> RayH >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >> ipv6@ietf.org >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > -- Regards, RayH -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBDG3J6XA3QJRB76W3CJQKGQEBQTDXEY@cs.luc.edu Sun Nov 03 04:54:55 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-ie0-f200.google.com (mail-ie0-f200.google.com [209.85.223.200]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBB4818EEC for ; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 04:54:55 -0600 (CST) Received: by mail-ie0-f200.google.com with SMTP id aq17sf18131320iec.11 for ; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 02:54:55 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:subject:from:to:date :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:precedence:list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe :sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=zJSfQBQlWH20m7V+pGAOLhzTW5zlX3n0xuhNBa5qd3c=; b=C86w6YDpc9inLTFC+j7XH1LpzUT7O8jQeAfgP6Mefhj9jqjFLfgmmfXO8Em6NbD+5+ KqUnTtltt+vc/rvDZVqdQ92bLeoH0gbTe1Up86ZLXgBuZjRC4TV30rxMrHzKReKjv8gg D/VoqC0ANmMymiv+kW7Bw5dzBLz1VVIJzGleyWDXOn11bJl5iuFhoNjvyYNM/ZOJJedV tV97wVLo5FSrvfjh8JoThXbKOcGT4pg3SkHx6cBSDSOrG5VCZWVAQzlXF6jxZpxlxSb6 QZhtde1nN3qg7s43sMcvLvWtyvN8gsPm9fXbaz0B2YJnyKLGMVcan7Jo4mDlPKKmOhBn cyhw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmIp8kH+x1NZ+yrEvENFkU/bk2lWVN2ZnsVGRe9ltQ51mMO8M4T3HfZ3aW9HfjcmVpSJOpV X-Received: by 10.182.205.138 with SMTP id lg10mr3753080obc.33.1383476095480; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 02:54:55 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.182.97.165 with SMTP id eb5ls1106256obb.81.gmail; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 02:54:55 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.60.179.52 with SMTP id dd20mr9697826oec.23.1383476095021; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 02:54:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ob0-f199.google.com (mail-ob0-f199.google.com [209.85.214.199]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i3si6973322obz.94.2013.11.03.02.54.54 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 03 Nov 2013 02:54:54 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDG3J6XA3QJRB7WW3CJQKGQEGHMNEZI@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-ob0-f199.google.com with SMTP id gq1sf19415854obb.2 for ; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 02:54:54 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.42.123.69 with SMTP id q5mr3301847icr.13.1383476094165; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 02:54:54 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.12.67 with SMTP id w3ls1057777igb.25.canary; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 02:54:53 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.66.7.68 with SMTP id h4mr12627832paa.0.1383476093930; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 02:54:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id t2si8150946pbq.218.2013.11.03.02.54.53 for ; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 02:54:53 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE69C11E80EC; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 02:54:52 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBBBD11E80EC for ; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 02:54:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k7yOB8sBp-KN for ; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 02:54:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net [IPv6:2001:44b8:8060:ff02:300:1:2:7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE82B11E8127 for ; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 02:54:47 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AswBANcqdlKWZX+7/2dsb2JhbAANTIM/Tb9VgTCDGQEBAQSBCQsYLlcZiAkFqhmSdo9fFoQYA4kIkDGLJohu Received: from eth4284.nsw.adsl.internode.on.net (HELO [192.168.1.196]) ([150.101.127.187]) by ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 03 Nov 2013 21:24:45 +1030 Message-ID: <1383476081.3331.43.camel@karl> Subject: Re: Re: Why /64 From: Karl Auer To: ipv6@ietf.org Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 21:54:41 +1100 In-Reply-To: <5275FEBF.30909@globis.net> References: <5275FEBF.30909@globis.net> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3-0ubuntu6 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: kauer@biplane.com.au X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDG3J6XA3QJRB7WW3CJQKGQEGHMNEZI@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBDG3J6XA3QJRB7WW3CJQKGQEGHMNEZI@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 76 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 1314 On Sun, 2013-11-03 at 08:43 +0100, Ray Hunter wrote: > How about http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6583? > 6.2. Minimal Subnet Sizing > The rest of the points seem to be pretty soft operational arguments. I > like these, but I don't think they stack up against a (potential) DDOS > target. Hm. Definite major cost savings across the network against a risk is a soft operational argument? You must work with a different class of bean counter to the ones I've worked with :-) But don't take my word for it (hah!). Run the numbers. Use reasonable estimates for the costs to be saved and reasonable estimates for the possible cost of a DDOS, multiply both by the appropriate risk factors over time and see which course is the most reasonable. Regards, K. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer http://twitter.com/kauer389 GPG fingerprint: B862 FB15 FE96 4961 BC62 1A40 6239 1208 9865 5F9A Old fingerprint: AE1D 4868 6420 AD9A A698 5251 1699 7B78 4EEE 6017 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCC77QGWVMIRBXHR3KJQKGQEI3BEAKI@cs.luc.edu Sun Nov 03 14:58:05 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-ob0-f197.google.com (mail-ob0-f197.google.com [209.85.214.197]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F403118EBC for ; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 14:58:04 -0600 (CST) Received: by mail-ob0-f197.google.com with SMTP id vb8sf20751972obc.0 for ; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 12:58:04 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=23yUb8VqrBTs1qkc8cc1FF4ed+91xw2jeMgOJXUkZjA=; b=HJHJmiz3saPbM6deS5RTLy7ELdab9umgnErUG86pc9PUafVjJV784xed16e2JBw8MH bchi2RKC5E26HioOu71xwoOoFqW+mLG1FMEljIRCtGd0gF+3oGScKLDLI5SHQvW2JOp3 +qkRqcegmJLD4aZzFMevgIqJSvnRWuOliVkHjegJgDHVlNu8aJHZXoCarspgppThw3pw vxV3Rt6jhTRsZitEVppsO0gXVHsShDRyiVlyl2mlA+Q/wEYCtZaudwT19YDv6og9yYPf PcPvzweW82JOrjj8O1+qrozO2DQ7s8SNdTU+S+99Nt2nYHjS6Y39l0cle4zp5th0Kqef L58Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlmyi9Leyagxk9/TNp1AKO9ZnEPJZ3ttQDrqejMc6zwE6Ziv9Ah8ZRHwdushckcznDLii2J X-Received: by 10.182.246.39 with SMTP id xt7mr867514obc.40.1383512284535; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 12:58:04 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.49.83.198 with SMTP id s6ls238280qey.46.gmail; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 12:58:04 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.49.133.129 with SMTP id pc1mr17978129qeb.44.1383512284418; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 12:58:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qc0-f199.google.com (mail-qc0-f199.google.com [209.85.216.199]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n2si8102385qac.103.2013.11.03.12.58.04 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 03 Nov 2013 12:58:04 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBXHR3KJQKGQERNVQMTQ@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-qc0-f199.google.com with SMTP id q4sf11837751qcx.2 for ; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 12:58:04 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.58.136.6 with SMTP id pw6mr4535310veb.32.1383512284103; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 12:58:04 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.178.133 with SMTP id cy5ls1210151igc.0.canary; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 12:58:03 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.67.14.231 with SMTP id fj7mr14518834pad.115.1383512283890; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 12:58:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id yj4si9216410pac.21.2013.11.03.12.58.03 for ; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 12:58:03 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 677E311E81D3; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 12:58:03 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4C0F11E8170 for ; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 12:57:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1oeJYmg2hbM1 for ; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 12:57:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from globis01.globis.net (RayH-1-pt.tunnel.tserv11.ams1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f14:62e::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F9BD11E80FA for ; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 12:57:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5A10870078; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 21:57:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from globis01.globis.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.globis.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8sBGqYTk+Bw4; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 21:57:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from Rays-iMac-2.local (unknown [192.168.0.3]) (Authenticated sender: Ray.Hunter@globis.net) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7F46C870074; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 21:57:17 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <5276B8AC.4080209@globis.net> Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 21:57:16 +0100 From: Ray Hunter User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.8 (Macintosh/20130427) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <5275FEBF.30909@globis.net> <52767A77.10708@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <52767A77.10708@gmail.com> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pld@math.luc.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBXHR3KJQKGQERNVQMTQ@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBAABBXHR3KJQKGQERNVQMTQ@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 77 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 3236 > Brian E Carpenter > 3 November 2013 17:31 > Ray, > > On 03/11/2013 20:43, Ray Hunter wrote: >> Victor Kuarsingh wrote: > > ... >> How about http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6583? >> >> 6.2. Minimal Subnet Sizing >> >> By sizing subnets to reflect the number of addresses actually in use, >> the problem can be avoided. >> >> That breaks today's SLAAC. > > It would, so it's currently useless advice, indeed, and the counter-argument > is that it makes host addresses much easier to guess once you have > identified a prefix (i.e. if prefix:1 responds, you can guess that prefix:2 > through prefix:254 also exist). I think you've found a serious bug in RFC 6583. > > Fortunately section 6 of RFC 6583 contains several other mitigations. > > Brian I think the list is underestimating the number of middleware boxes employed in enterprise networks. If the first virus or worm like Code Red or Code Blue can take down a whole IPv6 network by simple resource exhaustion of some downstream devices, there's something seriously wrong. Indeed simple BCP38 egress and ingress access lists saved many people's skins during those incidents, and I hope we've learned from them. I disagree that it's currently useless advice in RFC6583 (having contributed text to this draft myself). One workaround for the problem you mention is to move the "opacity" into the prefix portion of the IID address space. You can easily configure a prefix/VLAN almost per host with modern L3 switches at very little cost. ACL's are also often pre-compiled and are pretty efficient to process. So in front of the "sensitive' middleware box at the ingress to a site, it'd be fine to have multiple static ACL filters of :::/120 :::/120 :::/120... :::/120 where is one or more site prefixes to /64 level, and ,, ... are seemingly "random" strings of 56 bits that provide opacity in the IID portion from the bits /64 to /120 (starting with 000 for static assignments to avoid any compatibility issues). Then the middleware box would only have to deal with at max n*2^8 addresses in any stateful lookup tables, which is easily do-able, even in poorly implemented software. That's many orders of magnitude less than 2^64, and much less draconian than having to force all middleware boxes to perform only stateless handling. Some things, like fragmentation reassembly, simply cannot be made stateless. And off-site attackers should still find it equally difficult to perform cross-host correlation attacks as if every LAN truly was a /64, because they'd have trouble learning ... . IMHO It'd be "nice" from an organisational and administration perspective if all of that filtering magic could happen in the data centre LAN switch fabric, whilst hosts could still perform SLAAC on the longer /120 masks, rather than having to be manually statically configured. regards, > -- Regards, RayH -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCC77QGWVMIRBF4Z36JQKGQESHJQ5EQ@cs.luc.edu Mon Nov 04 10:34:32 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-pb0-f69.google.com (mail-pb0-f69.google.com [209.85.160.69]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BD31185CB for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 10:34:32 -0600 (CST) Received: by mail-pb0-f69.google.com with SMTP id md4sf13062475pbc.4 for ; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 08:34:31 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=/Yir9RTARjvY7orIk7aVcANYXlUyyiaoYF1bCvGH6xA=; b=Qp9kL0ucL9EivicKjvT2LOuKbnXyy50yuBb41ux/KMwPPw/3AJvahUSLaNLjLL77AO cIgr/RtBUuKZm0q8N5jf9ehthUIM7diHXzPJ15Hb74bM0Zdw40DAc0uQ5WMms4fvP8H8 23u98ZI4u3ITSC3Xz7aIVNJpmeY+GZxN5FCLHnfJwJyKuoRQ8FeWstyTdjEletnPmn4W IfLPPPIAFMxMpsBdkqOxhW5a1FAsoLqLXfXK/JbJYlsSPxZ1dpDdVKbMlsJm48p0AXnX /fNXipHmZK1q6OaegfFLRIcgziDreLyTNE0vll0m9V4pFEKIB68n6HoL9kEPeysZ5eUQ iRVQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkFXLy33Q3JjFJJ2pffgMu2Kg0hJEikmyf9Y7VQsqVphPv2AA6lGbddJ/aKyB5BY3OlBlka X-Received: by 10.66.160.168 with SMTP id xl8mr5724246pab.14.1383582871518; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 08:34:31 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.49.116.135 with SMTP id jw7ls2414913qeb.58.gmail; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 08:34:31 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.49.95.135 with SMTP id dk7mr23222127qeb.3.1383582871341; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 08:34:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qc0-f197.google.com (mail-qc0-f197.google.com [209.85.216.197]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n2si9662793qac.103.2013.11.04.08.34.30 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 04 Nov 2013 08:34:30 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBFUZ36JQKGQEFA7CM3Y@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-qc0-f197.google.com with SMTP id x19sf13433123qcw.0 for ; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 08:34:30 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.236.49.72 with SMTP id w48mr8462496yhb.34.1383582870928; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 08:34:30 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.4.97 with SMTP id j1ls1493313igj.37.canary; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 08:34:30 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.66.149.231 with SMTP id ud7mr18852593pab.8.1383582870679; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 08:34:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id qk4si11210582pac.177.2013.11.04.08.34.30 for ; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 08:34:30 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FBA321F9E28; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 08:34:29 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3996821F9DD5 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 08:34:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qi-JMUXjT3wi for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 08:34:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from globis01.globis.net (RayH-1-pt.tunnel.tserv11.ams1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f14:62e::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CFC521F9EAD for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 08:34:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16E188700B5; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 17:34:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from globis01.globis.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.globis.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3nm9+FFIxh2X; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 17:34:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from Rays-iMac-2.local (unknown [192.168.0.3]) (Authenticated sender: Ray.Hunter@globis.net) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id D32D6870081; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 17:34:23 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <5277CC8E.8050105@globis.net> Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 17:34:22 +0100 From: Ray Hunter User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.8 (Macintosh/20130427) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <5275FEBF.30909@globis.net> <52767A77.10708@gmail.com> <5276B8AC.4080209@globis.net> <5276E0B4.3060409@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5276E0B4.3060409@gmail.com> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pld@math.luc.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBFUZ36JQKGQEFA7CM3Y@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBAABBFUZ36JQKGQEFA7CM3Y@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 78 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 12836 > Brian E Carpenter > 4 November 2013 00:48 >> One workaround for the problem you mention is to move the "opacity" into >> the prefix portion of the IID address space. > > If I am watching traffic from your site, I will pick up valid host addresses > and I can base my scanning attack on addresses close to each of those > valid addresses, without even needing to know the prefix length. I just > scan address+-1, address+-2, and so on. I will find all your hosts. > No need to DOS the infrastructure; more fun to DOS the hosts. > > Regards > Brian If you are doing that sort of traffic observation, then opacity based on SLAAC + /64 is equally irrelevant, which was one of your original objections to increasing prefix length in the first place. The workaround was to address your concerns on opacity, not to avoid DDOS on individual hosts. > > On 04/11/2013 09:57, Ray Hunter wrote: >>> Brian E Carpenter >>> 3 November 2013 17:31 >>> Ray, >>> >>> On 03/11/2013 20:43, Ray Hunter wrote: >>>> Victor Kuarsingh wrote: >>> ... >>>> How about http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6583? >>>> >>>> 6.2. Minimal Subnet Sizing >>>> >>>> By sizing subnets to reflect the number of addresses actually in use, >>>> the problem can be avoided. >>>> >>>> That breaks today's SLAAC. >>> It would, so it's currently useless advice, indeed, and the counter-argument >>> is that it makes host addresses much easier to guess once you have >>> identified a prefix (i.e. if prefix:1 responds, you can guess that prefix:2 >>> through prefix:254 also exist). I think you've found a serious bug in RFC 6583. >>> >>> Fortunately section 6 of RFC 6583 contains several other mitigations. >>> >>> Brian >> I think the list is underestimating the number of middleware boxes >> employed in enterprise networks. >> >> If the first virus or worm like Code Red or Code Blue can take down a >> whole IPv6 network by simple resource exhaustion of some downstream >> devices, there's something seriously wrong. Indeed simple BCP38 egress >> and ingress access lists saved many people's skins during those >> incidents, and I hope we've learned from them. >> >> I disagree that it's currently useless advice in RFC6583 (having >> contributed text to this draft myself). >> >> One workaround for the problem you mention is to move the "opacity" into >> the prefix portion of the IID address space. >> >> You can easily configure a prefix/VLAN almost per host with modern L3 >> switches at very little cost. ACL's are also often pre-compiled and are >> pretty efficient to process. >> >> So in front of the "sensitive' middleware box at the ingress to a site, >> it'd be fine to have multiple static ACL filters of :::/120 >> :::/120 :::/120... :::/120 >> >> where is one or more site prefixes to /64 level, and ,, >> ... are seemingly "random" strings of 56 bits that provide opacity >> in the IID portion from the bits /64 to /120 (starting with 000 for >> static assignments to avoid any compatibility issues). >> >> Then the middleware box would only have to deal with at max n*2^8 >> addresses in any stateful lookup tables, which is easily do-able, even >> in poorly implemented software. >> >> That's many orders of magnitude less than 2^64, and much less draconian >> than having to force all middleware boxes to perform only stateless >> handling. >> Some things, like fragmentation reassembly, simply cannot be made stateless. >> >> And off-site attackers should still find it equally difficult to perform >> cross-host correlation attacks as if every LAN truly was a /64, because >> they'd have trouble learning ... . >> >> IMHO It'd be "nice" from an organisational and administration >> perspective if all of that filtering magic could happen in the data >> centre LAN switch fabric, whilst hosts could still perform SLAAC on the >> longer /120 masks, rather than having to be manually statically configured. >> >> regards, >> > Ray Hunter > 3 November 2013 21:57 >> Brian E Carpenter >> 3 November 2013 17:31 >> Ray, >> >> On 03/11/2013 20:43, Ray Hunter wrote: >>> Victor Kuarsingh wrote: >> ... >>> How about http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6583? >>> >>> 6.2. Minimal Subnet Sizing >>> >>> By sizing subnets to reflect the number of addresses actually in use, >>> the problem can be avoided. >>> >>> That breaks today's SLAAC. >> It would, so it's currently useless advice, indeed, and the counter-argument >> is that it makes host addresses much easier to guess once you have >> identified a prefix (i.e. if prefix:1 responds, you can guess that prefix:2 >> through prefix:254 also exist). I think you've found a serious bug in RFC 6583. >> >> Fortunately section 6 of RFC 6583 contains several other mitigations. >> >> Brian > I think the list is underestimating the number of middleware boxes > employed in enterprise networks. > > If the first virus or worm like Code Red or Code Blue can take down a > whole IPv6 network by simple resource exhaustion of some downstream > devices, there's something seriously wrong. Indeed simple BCP38 egress > and ingress access lists saved many people's skins during those > incidents, and I hope we've learned from them. > > I disagree that it's currently useless advice in RFC6583 (having > contributed text to this draft myself). > > One workaround for the problem you mention is to move the "opacity" into > the prefix portion of the IID address space. > > You can easily configure a prefix/VLAN almost per host with modern L3 > switches at very little cost. ACL's are also often pre-compiled and are > pretty efficient to process. > > So in front of the "sensitive' middleware box at the ingress to a site, > it'd be fine to have multiple static ACL filters of :::/120 > :::/120 :::/120... :::/120 > > where is one or more site prefixes to /64 level, and ,, > ... are seemingly "random" strings of 56 bits that provide opacity > in the IID portion from the bits /64 to /120 (starting with 000 for > static assignments to avoid any compatibility issues). > > Then the middleware box would only have to deal with at max n*2^8 > addresses in any stateful lookup tables, which is easily do-able, even > in poorly implemented software. > > That's many orders of magnitude less than 2^64, and much less draconian > than having to force all middleware boxes to perform only stateless > handling. > Some things, like fragmentation reassembly, simply cannot be made stateless. > > And off-site attackers should still find it equally difficult to perform > cross-host correlation attacks as if every LAN truly was a /64, because > they'd have trouble learning ... . > > IMHO It'd be "nice" from an organisational and administration > perspective if all of that filtering magic could happen in the data > centre LAN switch fabric, whilst hosts could still perform SLAAC on the > longer /120 masks, rather than having to be manually statically configured. > > regards, > > Brian E Carpenter > 3 November 2013 17:31 > Ray, > > On 03/11/2013 20:43, Ray Hunter wrote: >> Victor Kuarsingh wrote: > > ... >> How about http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6583? >> >> 6.2. Minimal Subnet Sizing >> >> By sizing subnets to reflect the number of addresses actually in use, >> the problem can be avoided. >> >> That breaks today's SLAAC. > > It would, so it's currently useless advice, indeed, and the counter-argument > is that it makes host addresses much easier to guess once you have > identified a prefix (i.e. if prefix:1 responds, you can guess that prefix:2 > through prefix:254 also exist). I think you've found a serious bug in RFC 6583. > > Fortunately section 6 of RFC 6583 contains several other mitigations. > > Brian > > Ray Hunter > 3 November 2013 08:43 > Victor Kuarsingh wrote: >> On 2013-10-31 10:53 PM, "Karl Auer" wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 00:59 +0000, Manfredi, Albert E wrote: >>>> Why would you need 2^64 IIDs for a subnet of neighborhood streetlights, >>>> for instance? >>> I don't know. But the key thing is that I don't need to. When I ask for >>> a glass of water at a restaurant, I do not know or care how many water >>> molecules I'm buying, either. It doesn't *matter*. >>> >>> No-one ever seems to consider the *advantages* of the "/64 everywhere" >>> approach. They decry the "waste" without looking at what that "waste" is >>> buying: >> I think this is a very important point. I think many (as did I at first), >> attempt to rationalize how much space we are wasting, then over time >> realized the operational and practical benefits of a standard subnet size >> (ops hat on). >> >>> - everything is the same. No more calculating (leaf) subnet sizes, no >>> more stealing from Peter to pay Paul, no more getting it wrong - every >>> subnet is a /64. >>> >>> >>> >>> - there are *always* enough addresses in *any* subnet for you add one >>> more device. Or even a hundred. You might run into other limits, but the >>> addressing will never get in your way. >>> >>> - adding a subnet is easy - just take the next /64. No estimates, >>> calculations, consideration or judgement needed. >> There has been significant simplification on how IP address space in >> operator networks (and I suspect other places) is now deployed. In my >> experience, this simplification also applied our management network side >> (akin to Enterprise network structure). A significant amount of >> operational effort is expended in IPv4 sizing, and re-sizing address >> blocks. I understand that having sizes like /80 may still be big enough >> not to require re-sizing - but /64 sure seems like enough for almost any >> subnet zone we can contemplate. I am sure, maybe one day we will have a >> new use case decades from now, but assuming that more prefixes (using >> smaller blocks) will satisfy this unknown requirement is a stretch. >> >> What we do know is that there is signifiant benefits from standard subnets >> sizes today deploying IPv6 for the first time. >> >>> - your router configs are easier to understand >>> >>> - your documentation is easier to write and easier to read. >>> >> Not only is the documentation easy and less prone to error (which is an >> endless battle with IPv4), it also greatly simplifies security >> configuration and policy. Working with variable subnet lengths adds >> complexity to the design and management process in networks. >> >> >> I am not saying that these points should stop us from considering other >> subnet lengths, but as noted by Karl above, we should evenly weigh the >> operational advantages. >> >> Lastly, I have not actually seen a convincing problem statement for this >> (similar to Erik's comments earlier in the thread). I have seen many >> what-if statements, but perhaps a clearly written draft with some use >> cases may be helpful (I did not find the car example very compelling since >> I can just assign a /56 or /48 to the care if multiple subnets are >> required there). >> >> Regards, >> >> Victor K >> > > How about http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6583? > > 6.2. Minimal Subnet Sizing > > By sizing subnets to reflect the number of addresses actually in use, > the problem can be avoided. > > That breaks today's SLAAC. > > To your point that the case for dropping /64 is based mainly on "what if > statements", AFAICS SLAAC is the only hard argument for maintaining /64. > The rest of the points seem to be pretty soft operational arguments. I > like these, but I don't think they stack up against a (potential) DDOS > target. > > regards, >>> Regards, K. >>> >>> -- >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au) >>> http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer >>> http://twitter.com/kauer389 >>> >>> GPG fingerprint: B862 FB15 FE96 4961 BC62 1A40 6239 1208 9865 5F9A >>> Old fingerprint: AE1D 4868 6420 AD9A A698 5251 1699 7B78 4EEE 6017 >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >>> ipv6@ietf.org >>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Regards, RayH -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCOYDX7L4IHBBGU24CJQKGQEHMOTIKQ@cs.luc.edu Mon Nov 04 15:09:47 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-yh0-f69.google.com (mail-yh0-f69.google.com [209.85.213.69]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B4FA18106 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:09:47 -0600 (CST) Received: by mail-yh0-f69.google.com with SMTP id v1sf5707639yhn.4 for ; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 13:09:46 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:from:to:subject:thread-topic :thread-index:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :mime-version:cc:precedence:list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive :list-post:list-help:list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :content-language:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=sQw5IaM8Nh8g1ASoWdfIUMkteW67Pxn6hlI18ODQukY=; b=km6gAXQ1fWhwp8e1yhi/+5cfe52b/1DDkTdgFhph56iYOMQnb+VigrJUIOaTcLhX8D X8BSVKz9k1gX/Wk4UP/mK0RWAyadqnW81HItTbN7HhUKhwQFRulAHCWRCVOqrCl+QtYz QKaUJzdN5ZmytejztYYSZLD2wXmnfhpz8sl9+C5ZvBurYgLVQhUfM3zfAJjBrYBhPQlW 5SuQA5GhkKHMDTL+0ELay/dEIcwGdr7EQL/QmHzS/fhM9qKE3BuH1O9Q1vy3m33qfJ8g vrLryXu4tSxEP6uY9/nq3lcHOVLwhfW0QKPZ5+TJ5wigUoNYxXvf28/qKmP2P9Ew1Vot jvjQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkRE8ZefJvXl8yEmX6CN7nsP45YSlZYQgrTi8Nec/JtIqpk6gSaxZQwMkf47A2fEBCY1Mgy X-Received: by 10.224.98.132 with SMTP id q4mr10032209qan.2.1383599386771; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 13:09:46 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.36.7 with SMTP id m7ls549407igj.21.gmail; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 13:09:46 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.66.191.137 with SMTP id gy9mr4406423pac.147.1383599386553; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 13:09:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pb0-f71.google.com (mail-pb0-f71.google.com [209.85.160.71]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k8si9347745paw.15.2013.11.04.13.09.46 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 04 Nov 2013 13:09:46 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCOYDX7L4IHBBGM24CJQKGQEKFSY4UI@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-pb0-f71.google.com with SMTP id uo5sf13625998pbc.6 for ; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 13:09:45 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.66.141.46 with SMTP id rl14mr1136340pab.44.1383599385906; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 13:09:45 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.111.167 with SMTP id ij7ls1618475igb.39.gmail; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 13:09:45 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.66.155.102 with SMTP id vv6mr19797509pab.89.1383599385701; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 13:09:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id p7si7778913pab.217.2013.11.04.13.09.45 for ; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 13:09:45 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19CDC11E8212; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 13:09:45 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 796AF11E8228 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 13:09:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kzhWHfyYmR8l for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 13:09:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com (stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com [130.76.96.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04F7411E8212 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 13:09:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id rA4L9aw5026210 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:09:36 -0600 Received: from XCH-PHX-105.sw.nos.boeing.com (xch-phx-105.sw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.238.8]) by stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id rA4L9ZVm026186 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:09:36 -0600 Received: from XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.6.120]) by XCH-PHX-105.sw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.4.118]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 13:09:35 -0800 From: "Manfredi, Albert E" To: Brian E Carpenter Subject: RE: Why /64 Thread-Topic: Why /64 Thread-Index: AQHO2XvDc/AmlOATcEixqpaFeKn8S5oV0teA//+7MBA= Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 21:09:34 +0000 Message-ID: <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4B0631@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> References: <5275FEBF.30909@globis.net> <52767A77.10708@gmail.com> <5276B8AC.4080209@globis.net> <5276E0B4.3060409@gmail.com> <5277CC8E.8050105@globis.net> <5277D37D.2080907@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5277D37D.2080907@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-MML: disable Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCOYDX7L4IHBBGM24CJQKGQEKFSY4UI@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBCOYDX7L4IHBBGM24CJQKGQEKFSY4UI@math.luc.edu Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 79 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 1555 > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian > E Carpenter > Not at all. Finding one host in a /64 gives me no help at all in guessing > a second host in the same /64, unless the network is foolish enough > to number its hosts with consecutive numbers. > > I am currently 2001:67c:370:160:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781. > That gives you no clue about any other host in 2001:67c:370:160::/64 > > I am also 31.133.165.38. That gives you a very strong clue about at > least 126 other possible hosts. I've just found two of them > after only 5 tries. In fact, the situation is very similar with IPv4 and NAT, except that IPv4 plus NAT is the equivalent of 32 bits of prefix and 32 bits of IID. I can set up my home modem/router, not to mention the WiFi access point downstream of that, to give out addresses that would also be difficult to guess. I think that even if an ISP hands out /64s, if someone wants to break that up into different subnets, the argument that this shouldn't be done because the IIDs are easier to guess doesn't seems a strong argument to me. I'll buy the argument that it's easier for operators to have a consistent length IID, but it just sounds a bit like saying that classful addresses were easier to manage. Bert -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBDG3J6XA3QJRBLVS4CJQKGQEAH3QCWQ@cs.luc.edu Mon Nov 04 16:01:18 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-ie0-f197.google.com (mail-ie0-f197.google.com [209.85.223.197]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F376183A6 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 16:01:18 -0600 (CST) Received: by mail-ie0-f197.google.com with SMTP id e14sf23222933iej.4 for ; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:01:18 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:subject:from:to:date :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:precedence:list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe :sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=mX/qYRGrfiOvLTOgsnJvo1LvyKs8UbWhMefkjQdNnDY=; b=fsvMzNlJ0Bn3rWHmWHekYwXDNE65aVSxtPNLOO7OUP4gQIpV2TM/XU7LrhmSCIHGoY vkUcf+w4GWbAN9G9X8Z+xUcYw954tbpGqR2qeS5TVIfh1+gGElNqLfBjCP2dkFPRtzdS tL8oWxdTquMu7eZ7zMfRtPcf2szzeQKtTzHQieLHkaNmvUXvsU0FE/BY52I25wVMSx9L Ub3a2Btw9ac0/urCac3LoQNpmSP9+2500w1zPkygFMn80B8emanLZie7ySCj3lPt5qxp JMw5R74kJQlWLtnmiu5ht+paO1cOaGjsUTE5NFdoZkvTOPFwKMDL7nv8BmBE7qYdH5oq /K9A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnU4tWz2s2wT+6s1IiWG1DbFbiIDnIp5f0OD/2mKAmMywTJSFuiCvkQxZ145efp5AvV1mvE X-Received: by 10.50.85.109 with SMTP id g13mr6286154igz.1.1383602478144; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:01:18 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.164.200 with SMTP id ys8ls1618409igb.23.gmail; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:01:17 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.66.152.102 with SMTP id ux6mr19412049pab.79.1383602477946; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:01:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pb0-f72.google.com (mail-pb0-f72.google.com [209.85.160.72]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dl5si11539586pbd.86.2013.11.04.14.01.17 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:01:17 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDG3J6XA3QJRBLNS4CJQKGQEY2EXY2Q@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-pb0-f72.google.com with SMTP id jt11sf13691336pbb.7 for ; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:01:17 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.66.189.163 with SMTP id gj3mr6223297pac.32.1383602477546; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:01:17 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.176.202 with SMTP id ck10ls182376igc.1.canary; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:01:17 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.68.137.9 with SMTP id qe9mr8393262pbb.133.1383602477312; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:01:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id j10si11804185pac.344.2013.11.04.14.01.16 for ; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:01:17 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AED4B21E80AC; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 14:01:16 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E20C21E80DB for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 14:01:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D6Z8UK5cOvDl for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 14:01:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net [IPv6:2001:44b8:8060:ff02:300:1:2:7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BF0611E815E for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 14:01:13 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: At4BAPcXeFKWZX+7/2dsb2JhbAANTIM/Tb9FgUKDGQEBAQRyFwsYLlcZGYdwqxCTK44ZgUYWhBgDiQiQMYsmiG6BVA Received: from eth4284.nsw.adsl.internode.on.net (HELO [192.168.1.196]) ([150.101.127.187]) by ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 05 Nov 2013 08:31:08 +1030 Message-ID: <1383602464.3331.170.camel@karl> Subject: RE: Why /64 From: Karl Auer To: ipv6@ietf.org Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 09:01:04 +1100 In-Reply-To: <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4B0631@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> References: <5275FEBF.30909@globis.net> <52767A77.10708@gmail.com> <5276B8AC.4080209@globis.net> <5276E0B4.3060409@gmail.com> <5277CC8E.8050105@globis.net> <5277D37D.2080907@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4B0631@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3-0ubuntu6 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: kauer@biplane.com.au X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDG3J6XA3QJRBLNS4CJQKGQEY2EXY2Q@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBDG3J6XA3QJRBLNS4CJQKGQEY2EXY2Q@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 80 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 2381 On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 21:09 +0000, Manfredi, Albert E wrote: > I'll buy the argument that it's easier for operators to have a > consistent length IID, but it just sounds a bit like saying that > classful addresses were easier to manage. They were - far easier. But IPv4 address scarcity forced CIDR on us. While CIDR rescued us for a little while from the strictures of a small address space, it also pushed us into a maze of twisty little tunnels, all different. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.[1] I hated CIDR at first. It complicated my life and meant I was calculating stuff all the time. I got it wrong a lot :-). Up until then everything in my world had been 255.255.255.0. I recall a LOT of people being in a love/hate relationship with CIDR, especially during the period where some stuff didn't support it yet. The DNS never did catch up. But CIDR was a necessary evil, so the world went from three standard subnet sizes to a welter of variation that has been causing frustration and error ever since, with the pain steadily increasing as IPv4 address scarcity bit deeper. The 64-bit IID size gives us back all the advantages of the pre-CIDR world, and none of the disadvantages (NDCE is a new thing).[2] IPv6 *has* CIDR. You can have subnets of any size you like. Only if you want to use SLAAC are you limited to /64 subnets. Sure the standard says /64, but in the privacy of your own network, you can do as you please. There are plenty of people doing very strange things with IPv4 inside their networks, and if you want to commit self-harm with IPv6 too, no-one can stop you. Regards, K. [1] The price of IPv6 is a protocol change. Definitely not free :-( [2] The fear that we will run out of IPv6 address space because of 64-bit IIDs is IMHO misplaced, but I won't rehash the arguments. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer http://twitter.com/kauer389 GPG fingerprint: B862 FB15 FE96 4961 BC62 1A40 6239 1208 9865 5F9A Old fingerprint: AE1D 4868 6420 AD9A A698 5251 1699 7B78 4EEE 6017 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCC77QGWVMIRBFF64CJQKGQEZIYMT7Y@cs.luc.edu Mon Nov 04 16:26:29 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-ob0-f200.google.com (mail-ob0-f200.google.com [209.85.214.200]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 236BE18591 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 16:26:29 -0600 (CST) Received: by mail-ob0-f200.google.com with SMTP id uy5sf25098928obc.3 for ; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:26:28 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=6wBR4st3/Coe0/VfoHXABsB0HBw53slYK+GPbRfgqlQ=; b=K0IE4Wb6xLaHzgEsLnBipbxeGH2oLJcRAcxz1H2oyIlQSz6hBiwz30ls0An5mUzcvD +KP29N46lbQRwcV2hQMurdtUu0ExrtkNQoRlZJAW/3EMxb2howEfT38CExPpi/uUn/Uy iuRQ4FITVs4qwCyuLkSb8VE6/gKlTLf34c84QoRAyvgpxcNLoAZ3O68C4DH/m7t84iqu PX/uuJhxTmR7ZG05xOJXl27fKrEzhcxvCQIxoWobxfhn0gkmsaPWIHzpIhMdnbW1D/zl 7IDUtDxDZnt5eRDcXg3c1iEJGWVHCT2RxhcgFdT2lh1//4jdttKvNWI7E7GMkzrSRxVF jWPw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn8+uF3A96COqzZ5HerVu6iHI63jqDE9LEtwQk9bLvVv/ShmsK2shdbEh5szh9Jw/J0yDgk X-Received: by 10.42.123.69 with SMTP id q5mr5451539icr.13.1383603988794; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:26:28 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.182.96.166 with SMTP id dt6ls1676690obb.78.gmail; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:26:28 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.182.44.134 with SMTP id e6mr16114177obm.14.1383603988615; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:26:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-oa0-f71.google.com (mail-oa0-f71.google.com [209.85.219.71]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w10si9936994obo.82.2013.11.04.14.26.28 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:26:28 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBFF64CJQKGQEGHNNV2I@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-oa0-f71.google.com with SMTP id j6sf25072147oag.2 for ; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:26:28 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.42.247.68 with SMTP id mb4mr5384385icb.14.1383603988323; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:26:28 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.39.106 with SMTP id o10ls1654336igk.8.gmail; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:26:28 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.68.254.105 with SMTP id ah9mr19971349pbd.87.1383603988151; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:26:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id mi5si11873751pab.193.2013.11.04.14.26.27 for ; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:26:27 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4204B11E814F; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 14:26:27 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ABAC21E80E3 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 14:26:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DKlDifiCWaTi for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 14:26:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from globis01.globis.net (RayH-1-pt.tunnel.tserv11.ams1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f14:62e::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63F2621E818A for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 14:26:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FC8C870081; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 23:26:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from globis01.globis.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.globis.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2RIROUTiPbt6; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 23:26:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from Rays-iMac-2.local (unknown [192.168.0.3]) (Authenticated sender: Ray.Hunter@globis.net) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 3BBDD87007B; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 23:26:17 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <52781F08.8090209@globis.net> Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 23:26:16 +0100 From: Ray Hunter User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.8 (Macintosh/20130427) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <5275FEBF.30909@globis.net> <52767A77.10708@gmail.com> <5276B8AC.4080209@globis.net> <5276E0B4.3060409@gmail.com> <5277CC8E.8050105@globis.net> <5277D37D.2080907@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5277D37D.2080907@gmail.com> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pld@math.luc.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBFF64CJQKGQEGHNNV2I@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBAABBFF64CJQKGQEGHNNV2I@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 81 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 14968 > Brian E Carpenter > 4 November 2013 18:03 > On 05/11/2013 05:34, Ray Hunter wrote: >>> Brian E Carpenter >>> 4 November 2013 00:48 >>>> One workaround for the problem you mention is to move the "opacity" into >>>> the prefix portion of the IID address space. >>> If I am watching traffic from your site, I will pick up valid host addresses >>> and I can base my scanning attack on addresses close to each of those >>> valid addresses, without even needing to know the prefix length. I just >>> scan address+-1, address+-2, and so on. I will find all your hosts. >>> No need to DOS the infrastructure; more fun to DOS the hosts. >>> >>> Regards >>> Brian >> If you are doing that sort of traffic observation, then opacity based on >> SLAAC + /64 is equally irrelevant, > > Not at all. Finding one host in a /64 gives me no help at all in guessing > a second host in the same /64, unless the network is foolish enough > to number its hosts with consecutive numbers. > > I am currently 2001:67c:370:160:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781. > That gives you no clue about any other host in 2001:67c:370:160::/64 > > I am also 31.133.165.38. That gives you a very strong clue about at > least 126 other possible hosts. I've just found two of them > after only 5 tries. > > Brian The point is that you don't have to find *any* nodes on a /64. Not one. You just send any old garbage to a bunch of addresses so any middle box or multicast listening node or last hop router is required to commit state for any length of time, and wait for it to run out of resources eventually. The poor middleboxes or routers upstream of a secure zone can't filter or rate limit with a "permit unless" rule as they don't know what is downstream, and that requires state to learn the attackers dynamically. Your own firewall or router becomes the attack target. I think Mark Smith is right. The only true solution is for nodes residing in a trusted zone to regularly register their presence to the upstream nodes or routers, so that the upstream nodes or routers can apply a blanket "deny unless" filtering rule. Then you might get your wish for fragmentation and other useful stateful operations to be permitted through firewalls. >> which was one of your original >> objections to increasing prefix length in the first place. The >> workaround was to address your concerns on opacity, not to avoid DDOS on >> individual hosts. >> >>> On 04/11/2013 09:57, Ray Hunter wrote: >>>>> Brian E Carpenter >>>>> 3 November 2013 17:31 >>>>> Ray, >>>>> >>>>> On 03/11/2013 20:43, Ray Hunter wrote: >>>>>> Victor Kuarsingh wrote: >>>>> ... >>>>>> How about http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6583? >>>>>> >>>>>> 6.2. Minimal Subnet Sizing >>>>>> >>>>>> By sizing subnets to reflect the number of addresses actually in use, >>>>>> the problem can be avoided. >>>>>> >>>>>> That breaks today's SLAAC. >>>>> It would, so it's currently useless advice, indeed, and the counter-argument >>>>> is that it makes host addresses much easier to guess once you have >>>>> identified a prefix (i.e. if prefix:1 responds, you can guess that prefix:2 >>>>> through prefix:254 also exist). I think you've found a serious bug in RFC 6583. >>>>> >>>>> Fortunately section 6 of RFC 6583 contains several other mitigations. >>>>> >>>>> Brian >>>> I think the list is underestimating the number of middleware boxes >>>> employed in enterprise networks. >>>> >>>> If the first virus or worm like Code Red or Code Blue can take down a >>>> whole IPv6 network by simple resource exhaustion of some downstream >>>> devices, there's something seriously wrong. Indeed simple BCP38 egress >>>> and ingress access lists saved many people's skins during those >>>> incidents, and I hope we've learned from them. >>>> >>>> I disagree that it's currently useless advice in RFC6583 (having >>>> contributed text to this draft myself). >>>> >>>> One workaround for the problem you mention is to move the "opacity" into >>>> the prefix portion of the IID address space. >>>> >>>> You can easily configure a prefix/VLAN almost per host with modern L3 >>>> switches at very little cost. ACL's are also often pre-compiled and are >>>> pretty efficient to process. >>>> >>>> So in front of the "sensitive' middleware box at the ingress to a site, >>>> it'd be fine to have multiple static ACL filters of :::/120 >>>> :::/120 :::/120... :::/120 >>>> >>>> where is one or more site prefixes to /64 level, and ,, >>>> ... are seemingly "random" strings of 56 bits that provide opacity >>>> in the IID portion from the bits /64 to /120 (starting with 000 for >>>> static assignments to avoid any compatibility issues). >>>> >>>> Then the middleware box would only have to deal with at max n*2^8 >>>> addresses in any stateful lookup tables, which is easily do-able, even >>>> in poorly implemented software. >>>> >>>> That's many orders of magnitude less than 2^64, and much less draconian >>>> than having to force all middleware boxes to perform only stateless >>>> handling. >>>> Some things, like fragmentation reassembly, simply cannot be made stateless. >>>> >>>> And off-site attackers should still find it equally difficult to perform >>>> cross-host correlation attacks as if every LAN truly was a /64, because >>>> they'd have trouble learning ... . >>>> >>>> IMHO It'd be "nice" from an organisational and administration >>>> perspective if all of that filtering magic could happen in the data >>>> centre LAN switch fabric, whilst hosts could still perform SLAAC on the >>>> longer /120 masks, rather than having to be manually statically configured. >>>> >>>> regards, >>>> >>> Ray Hunter >>> 3 November 2013 21:57 >>>> Brian E Carpenter >>>> 3 November 2013 17:31 >>>> Ray, >>>> >>>> On 03/11/2013 20:43, Ray Hunter wrote: >>>>> Victor Kuarsingh wrote: >>>> ... >>>>> How about http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6583? >>>>> >>>>> 6.2. Minimal Subnet Sizing >>>>> >>>>> By sizing subnets to reflect the number of addresses actually in use, >>>>> the problem can be avoided. >>>>> >>>>> That breaks today's SLAAC. >>>> It would, so it's currently useless advice, indeed, and the counter-argument >>>> is that it makes host addresses much easier to guess once you have >>>> identified a prefix (i.e. if prefix:1 responds, you can guess that prefix:2 >>>> through prefix:254 also exist). I think you've found a serious bug in RFC 6583. >>>> >>>> Fortunately section 6 of RFC 6583 contains several other mitigations. >>>> >>>> Brian >>> I think the list is underestimating the number of middleware boxes >>> employed in enterprise networks. >>> >>> If the first virus or worm like Code Red or Code Blue can take down a >>> whole IPv6 network by simple resource exhaustion of some downstream >>> devices, there's something seriously wrong. Indeed simple BCP38 egress >>> and ingress access lists saved many people's skins during those >>> incidents, and I hope we've learned from them. >>> >>> I disagree that it's currently useless advice in RFC6583 (having >>> contributed text to this draft myself). >>> >>> One workaround for the problem you mention is to move the "opacity" into >>> the prefix portion of the IID address space. >>> >>> You can easily configure a prefix/VLAN almost per host with modern L3 >>> switches at very little cost. ACL's are also often pre-compiled and are >>> pretty efficient to process. >>> >>> So in front of the "sensitive' middleware box at the ingress to a site, >>> it'd be fine to have multiple static ACL filters of :::/120 >>> :::/120 :::/120... :::/120 >>> >>> where is one or more site prefixes to /64 level, and ,, >>> ... are seemingly "random" strings of 56 bits that provide opacity >>> in the IID portion from the bits /64 to /120 (starting with 000 for >>> static assignments to avoid any compatibility issues). >>> >>> Then the middleware box would only have to deal with at max n*2^8 >>> addresses in any stateful lookup tables, which is easily do-able, even >>> in poorly implemented software. >>> >>> That's many orders of magnitude less than 2^64, and much less draconian >>> than having to force all middleware boxes to perform only stateless >>> handling. >>> Some things, like fragmentation reassembly, simply cannot be made stateless. >>> >>> And off-site attackers should still find it equally difficult to perform >>> cross-host correlation attacks as if every LAN truly was a /64, because >>> they'd have trouble learning ... . >>> >>> IMHO It'd be "nice" from an organisational and administration >>> perspective if all of that filtering magic could happen in the data >>> centre LAN switch fabric, whilst hosts could still perform SLAAC on the >>> longer /120 masks, rather than having to be manually statically configured. >>> >>> regards, >>> >>> Brian E Carpenter >>> 3 November 2013 17:31 >>> Ray, >>> >>> On 03/11/2013 20:43, Ray Hunter wrote: >>>> Victor Kuarsingh wrote: >>> ... >>>> How about http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6583? >>>> >>>> 6.2. Minimal Subnet Sizing >>>> >>>> By sizing subnets to reflect the number of addresses actually in use, >>>> the problem can be avoided. >>>> >>>> That breaks today's SLAAC. >>> It would, so it's currently useless advice, indeed, and the counter-argument >>> is that it makes host addresses much easier to guess once you have >>> identified a prefix (i.e. if prefix:1 responds, you can guess that prefix:2 >>> through prefix:254 also exist). I think you've found a serious bug in RFC 6583. >>> >>> Fortunately section 6 of RFC 6583 contains several other mitigations. >>> >>> Brian >>> >>> Ray Hunter >>> 3 November 2013 08:43 >>> Victor Kuarsingh wrote: >>>> On 2013-10-31 10:53 PM, "Karl Auer" wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 00:59 +0000, Manfredi, Albert E wrote: >>>>>> Why would you need 2^64 IIDs for a subnet of neighborhood streetlights, >>>>>> for instance? >>>>> I don't know. But the key thing is that I don't need to. When I ask for >>>>> a glass of water at a restaurant, I do not know or care how many water >>>>> molecules I'm buying, either. It doesn't *matter*. >>>>> >>>>> No-one ever seems to consider the *advantages* of the "/64 everywhere" >>>>> approach. They decry the "waste" without looking at what that "waste" is >>>>> buying: >>>> I think this is a very important point. I think many (as did I at first), >>>> attempt to rationalize how much space we are wasting, then over time >>>> realized the operational and practical benefits of a standard subnet size >>>> (ops hat on). >>>> >>>>> - everything is the same. No more calculating (leaf) subnet sizes, no >>>>> more stealing from Peter to pay Paul, no more getting it wrong - every >>>>> subnet is a /64. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - there are *always* enough addresses in *any* subnet for you add one >>>>> more device. Or even a hundred. You might run into other limits, but the >>>>> addressing will never get in your way. >>>>> >>>>> - adding a subnet is easy - just take the next /64. No estimates, >>>>> calculations, consideration or judgement needed. >>>> There has been significant simplification on how IP address space in >>>> operator networks (and I suspect other places) is now deployed. In my >>>> experience, this simplification also applied our management network side >>>> (akin to Enterprise network structure). A significant amount of >>>> operational effort is expended in IPv4 sizing, and re-sizing address >>>> blocks. I understand that having sizes like /80 may still be big enough >>>> not to require re-sizing - but /64 sure seems like enough for almost any >>>> subnet zone we can contemplate. I am sure, maybe one day we will have a >>>> new use case decades from now, but assuming that more prefixes (using >>>> smaller blocks) will satisfy this unknown requirement is a stretch. >>>> >>>> What we do know is that there is signifiant benefits from standard subnets >>>> sizes today deploying IPv6 for the first time. >>>> >>>>> - your router configs are easier to understand >>>>> >>>>> - your documentation is easier to write and easier to read. >>>>> >>>> Not only is the documentation easy and less prone to error (which is an >>>> endless battle with IPv4), it also greatly simplifies security >>>> configuration and policy. Working with variable subnet lengths adds >>>> complexity to the design and management process in networks. >>>> >>>> >>>> I am not saying that these points should stop us from considering other >>>> subnet lengths, but as noted by Karl above, we should evenly weigh the >>>> operational advantages. >>>> >>>> Lastly, I have not actually seen a convincing problem statement for this >>>> (similar to Erik's comments earlier in the thread). I have seen many >>>> what-if statements, but perhaps a clearly written draft with some use >>>> cases may be helpful (I did not find the car example very compelling since >>>> I can just assign a /56 or /48 to the care if multiple subnets are >>>> required there). >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Victor K >>>> >>> How about http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6583? >>> >>> 6.2. Minimal Subnet Sizing >>> >>> By sizing subnets to reflect the number of addresses actually in use, >>> the problem can be avoided. >>> >>> That breaks today's SLAAC. >>> >>> To your point that the case for dropping /64 is based mainly on "what if >>> statements", AFAICS SLAAC is the only hard argument for maintaining /64. >>> The rest of the points seem to be pretty soft operational arguments. I >>> like these, but I don't think they stack up against a (potential) DDOS >>> target. >>> >>> regards, >>>>> Regards, K. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>> Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au) >>>>> http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer >>>>> http://twitter.com/kauer389 >>>>> >>>>> GPG fingerprint: B862 FB15 FE96 4961 BC62 1A40 6239 1208 9865 5F9A >>>>> Old fingerprint: AE1D 4868 6420 AD9A A698 5251 1699 7B78 4EEE 6017 >>>>> >>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >>>>> ipv6@ietf.org >>>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -- Regards, RayH -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBD377S6KY4NRB56F4GJQKGQEMLHZTKQ@cs.luc.edu Mon Nov 04 21:16:08 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-ie0-f198.google.com (mail-ie0-f198.google.com [209.85.223.198]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06C35183A6 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 21:16:07 -0600 (CST) Received: by mail-ie0-f198.google.com with SMTP id tp5sf24027297ieb.1 for ; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 19:16:07 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-transfer-encoding :content-type; bh=B/9O3hNxKquGy/EvNaXXBk4K0ktuikBA4op4xpjLynA=; b=UthFk2eKJgfqXg70zFWiYvTHrHgMbRbb0c6jgKHiq26h2UfxE9+JWDG6JvyO1sjxW2 f/9WqekiCxeJfiJY6oflLcZz5go6btAONONYBVSanewl5JN1ME1paoNNptAlQkROagaF LNprsNWFwxh8IkLBEvoNxgPmQbrJg3CVzLIHnfiBv2tN2pTChl9l2Q/j7krFrGa764oh Bdec3uO2+kJbVQ2jujoW59HNPjaOfdX4GgRcohXAS+dKQjjRzAahAHbII7FF7i2kElbm 8uhqzvPKX+/Ml3cUtuHdi/8huzgHxAMOCQ9bfp9WdQEjDK5xbaiqNoe1HEX8IUkUgnvz auTw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkSOjNjdpZ5PNh4zIpx9cyfrNY9v3xQZAs9PKgJBu1DW+J77Q9V/xng/ROAl9sWUn+PBfVs X-Received: by 10.182.104.200 with SMTP id gg8mr1661582obb.45.1383621367719; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 19:16:07 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.182.221.231 with SMTP id qh7ls39930obc.96.gmail; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 19:16:07 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.182.101.134 with SMTP id fg6mr16713420obb.30.1383621367595; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 19:16:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ob0-f200.google.com (mail-ob0-f200.google.com [209.85.214.200]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id qc5si10259846oeb.6.2013.11.04.19.16.07 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 04 Nov 2013 19:16:07 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBD377S6KY4NRB56F4GJQKGQERBOZZ2Q@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-ob0-f200.google.com with SMTP id uy5sf25881085obc.3 for ; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 19:16:07 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.42.65.138 with SMTP id l10mr1123039ici.31.1383621367076; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 19:16:07 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.49.109.102 with SMTP id hr6ls54327qeb.13.gmail; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 19:16:06 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.236.102.234 with SMTP id d70mr16262622yhg.3.1383621366925; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 19:16:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id r6si6794889yhd.407.2013.11.04.19.16.06 for ; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 19:16:06 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6AE711E81F5; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 19:16:05 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D073711E821F for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 19:16:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AK1ugXzs0u3h for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 19:15:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from c.mail.sonic.net (c.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D94A11E81F5 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 19:15:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from a.mail.sonic.net (a.mail.sonic.net [64.142.16.245]) by c.mail.sonic.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rA53Fq8D010998 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 4 Nov 2013 19:15:52 -0800 Received: from [31.133.180.117] (dhcp-b475.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.180.117]) (authenticated bits=0) by a.mail.sonic.net (8.13.8.Beta0-Sonic/8.13.7) with ESMTP id rA53Fpqq001409 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 4 Nov 2013 19:15:51 -0800 Message-ID: <527862E8.4090106@acm.org> Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 19:15:52 -0800 From: Erik Nordmark User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ray Hunter , Victor Kuarsingh Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <5275FEBF.30909@globis.net> In-Reply-To: <5275FEBF.30909@globis.net> X-Sonic-ID: C;Fu+Ck8hF4xGNrD29zN2kxQ== M;PKSJk8hF4xGNrD29zN2kxQ== Cc: ipv6@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: nordmark@acm.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBD377S6KY4NRB56F4GJQKGQERBOZZ2Q@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBD377S6KY4NRB56F4GJQKGQERBOZZ2Q@math.luc.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" X-UID: 82 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 2075 On 11/3/13 12:43 AM, Ray Hunter wrote: > How about http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6583? > > 6.2. Minimal Subnet Sizing > > By sizing subnets to reflect the number of addresses actually in use, > the problem can be avoided. > > That breaks today's SLAAC. Ray, Whether it does depends on your definition of SLAAC. FWIW RFC 4862 "Stateless Address Autoconfiguration" doesn't have any notion of /64 (quite intentionally) but instead talks about concatenating the prefix with the IID. Hence that RFC can support different prefix/IID lengths. RFC 2464 (and many similar RFCs) specify in section 4 that the IID is a modified EUI-64 hence 64 bits long. Whether implementations can handle different IID lengths, or whether other RFCs have or have not hard-coded a /64 are different matters. But SLAAC as in the RFC doesn't break. Erik > To your point that the case for dropping /64 is based mainly on "what if > statements", AFAICS SLAAC is the only hard argument for maintaining /64. > The rest of the points seem to be pretty soft operational arguments. I > like these, but I don't think they stack up against a (potential) DDOS > target. > > regards, >>> Regards, K. >>> >>> -- >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au) >>> http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer >>> http://twitter.com/kauer389 >>> >>> GPG fingerprint: B862 FB15 FE96 4961 BC62 1A40 6239 1208 9865 5F9A >>> Old fingerprint: AE1D 4868 6420 AD9A A698 5251 1699 7B78 4EEE 6017 >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >>> ipv6@ietf.org >>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCC77QGWVMIRBZW442JQKGQERNC2O5Q@cs.luc.edu Tue Nov 05 20:50:16 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-pd0-f199.google.com (mail-pd0-f199.google.com [209.85.192.199]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A105B17C71 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 20:50:15 -0600 (CST) Received: by mail-pd0-f199.google.com with SMTP id y10sf16900481pdj.10 for ; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 18:50:14 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:mime-version:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:precedence:list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe :sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=D4baMYisyaHU3C50xLgGfzcUSFpVh7SlUX+6Zv+/bqQ=; b=LohSwJzhjGj56DBxQ2KlFmK5oimGbiNWOq6iRlZ9UUB+U4kShhmxdGwYBftXLsil/v mOygsd0ccR5pIR5FRgQcJdYBZa1sSBBUMvFlVphSQ9fGJhws0YLvvE1a4xgRiziBtcz4 Lnuk7t38JKU3jjPJLMJ1Q27MvoRnXQrbgdUPBokZb6B2z+af/yuBLImKGWuiiRK7o1bm 0dlxLxdmXfnvc38j1Av6NcJC1kP3LhTZFoWNdxlX7NBK9vkMGHz+c5XaUyFJN1uELy0T Ru2fWdHLJjmyc5N0Ss+ZE16+5NQYfX9ZIkoXEqeTSXsTQakegSJaatOZnWYuM26yBrI/ WStA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkcpslHPVPh5mD+tVrq+MNeLH+7EWNsvoSibcLYx9Vfamiiwi6AyQgvwGIqg1VvOlCOwrj6 X-Received: by 10.68.215.10 with SMTP id oe10mr39633pbc.7.1383706214351; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 18:50:14 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.182.241.202 with SMTP id wk10ls345678obc.0.gmail; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 18:50:14 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.60.142.8 with SMTP id rs8mr746024oeb.34.1383706214210; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 18:50:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-oa0-f72.google.com (mail-oa0-f72.google.com [209.85.219.72]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f9si11871538obe.6.2013.11.05.18.50.13 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 05 Nov 2013 18:50:13 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBZO442JQKGQE5PATHEI@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-oa0-f72.google.com with SMTP id m1sf4858319oag.11 for ; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 18:50:13 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.42.62.8 with SMTP id w8mr261186ich.23.1383706213575; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 18:50:13 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.102.5 with SMTP id fk5ls2223696igb.15.canary; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 18:50:13 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.66.100.227 with SMTP id fb3mr1635970pab.26.1383706213072; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 18:50:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id je1si15485511pbb.210.2013.11.05.18.50.12 for ; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 18:50:12 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC66811E818F; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 18:50:08 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A30911E81EB for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 18:49:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TJh3v4rM1mbW for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 18:49:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-x234.google.com (mail-wi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F18B811E81E1 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 18:49:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wi0-f180.google.com with SMTP id ey11so3043731wid.1 for ; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 18:49:53 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.175.66 with SMTP id by2mr26682wjc.59.1383706193007; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 18:49:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.120.167 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 18:49:52 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <527862E8.4090106@acm.org> References: <5275FEBF.30909@globis.net> <527862E8.4090106@acm.org> Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 18:49:52 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Why /64 From: =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= To: Erik Nordmark Cc: Ray Hunter , IPv6 IPv6 List X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pld@math.luc.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBZO442JQKGQE5PATHEI@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBAABBZO442JQKGQE5PATHEI@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 83 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 856 At Mon, 04 Nov 2013 19:15:52 -0800, Erik Nordmark wrote: > > Whether it does depends on your definition of SLAAC. > > FWIW RFC 4862 "Stateless Address Autoconfiguration" doesn't have any > notion of /64 (quite intentionally) but instead talks about > concatenating the prefix with the IID. Hence that RFC can support > different prefix/IID lengths. Right, RFC 4862 explicitly notes that in Section 5.5.3: [...] Thus, an implementation should not assume a particular constant. Rather, it should expect any lengths of interface identifiers. -- JINMEI, Tatuya -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCC77QGWVMIRBJNH5GJQKGQECZMVYSI@cs.luc.edu Wed Nov 06 08:35:17 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-oa0-f71.google.com (mail-oa0-f71.google.com [209.85.219.71]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B88B218123 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 08:35:17 -0600 (CST) Received: by mail-oa0-f71.google.com with SMTP id j17sf6802600oag.6 for ; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 06:35:17 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=3qItgzoozFN7+JyhAj2qp5+tgUrchhatNeVitCGAImQ=; b=XvUQpALJ1LwXa10iO1LYWowJtZqL+yCjZHPcFiu2hmKlJYb3iWKotW/a6gTtLbM+d9 nhPuGvbPvjvyfJgrccbAJGy90q1Q6KM8esK0jUbwLuZJIXgUnY4zSeO9fyDcfXEbrTl6 kqsXjaPFDQxyx5gQCoG005Xo2YVApaolD7+BSrSK1AsdEpK9pqIayt9PmC5oAT6Nfg4p HhDMbMv/y+Nlw6cUFShakmBXGcL8+4FbwXmdllimUlSHU9LxeZmBDt7gqZengjqBeekQ JdNcp9lW+nrzx1UJkLPJUCch8JpDVRW8cs0uM8p4RQSA0sd1bfuitVSZgwFyJeQbNMh0 bydw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmjdCz8R4ohwMcA694LGUTxnnP3QZFw/qzuZw2R+iI23GWEj9gRJf+CxNu/LqfXCw5ASvT7 X-Received: by 10.182.27.36 with SMTP id q4mr1067188obg.7.1383748517339; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 06:35:17 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.80.81 with SMTP id p17ls795466igx.15.gmail; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 06:35:16 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.66.66.133 with SMTP id f5mr4150734pat.176.1383748516789; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 06:35:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pb0-f72.google.com (mail-pb0-f72.google.com [209.85.160.72]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id cj2si17214093pbc.207.2013.11.06.06.35.16 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 06 Nov 2013 06:35:16 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBI5H5GJQKGQEYS73BRA@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-pb0-f72.google.com with SMTP id jt11sf16078930pbb.11 for ; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 06:35:16 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.67.2.41 with SMTP id bl9mr1599294pad.16.1383748516022; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 06:35:16 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.176.193 with SMTP id ck1ls822776igc.22.gmail; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 06:35:15 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.67.14.231 with SMTP id fj7mr4220917pad.115.1383748515509; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 06:35:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id ar5si17233328pbd.32.2013.11.06.06.35.15 for ; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 06:35:15 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C22ED11E8195; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 06:35:14 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B402B11E8195 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 06:35:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OAFPnM5hq2eR for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 06:35:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from globis01.globis.net (RayH-1-pt.tunnel.tserv11.ams1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f14:62e::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BF1A11E81A2 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 06:35:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B227F87007A; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 15:35:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from globis01.globis.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.globis.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sDdsSxKd0tFW; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 15:35:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from Rays-iMac-2.local (unknown [192.168.0.3]) (Authenticated sender: Ray.Hunter@globis.net) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7A977870056; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 15:35:11 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <527A539E.2050509@globis.net> Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 15:35:10 +0100 From: Ray Hunter User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.8 (Macintosh/20130427) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lorenzo Colitti Subject: Re: Why /64 References: <5275FEBF.30909@globis.net> <52767A77.10708@gmail.com> <5276B8AC.4080209@globis.net> <5276E0B4.3060409@gmail.com> <5277CC8E.8050105@globis.net> <5277D37D.2080907@gmail.com> <52781F08.8090209@globis.net> In-Reply-To: Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pld@math.luc.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBI5H5GJQKGQEYS73BRA@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBAABBI5H5GJQKGQEYS73BRA@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 84 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 1331 > Lorenzo Colitti > 6 November 2013 10:31 > On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Ray Hunter wrote: > > >> residing in a trusted zone to regularly register their presence to the >> upstream nodes or routers, so that the upstream nodes or routers can >> apply a blanket "deny unless" filtering rule. >> > > No, you just need to be a tiny bit more sophisticated than you are in IPv4. > > What I can't understand is that what we have in IPv4 today is *already* > much more complicated than this. We have extremely complicated and > massive-state-maintaining NAT boxes and ALG/firewalls just to keep IPv4 > running. IPv6 offers a simpler design and makes things easier to understand > on the local link, and suddenly the problem is now too huge for us to solve? > > No, it's just a different problem. Scarcity of downstream (and to some extent upstream) IPv4 addresses protected a lot of potentially bad code from exploitation. We're now going to discover who was swimming naked, as Warren Buffett would say. -- Regards, RayH -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBDW4XN6F3MIRBFV5UWJQKGQEHZMTAOI@cs.luc.edu Thu Oct 24 12:53:26 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-vb0-f71.google.com (mail-vb0-f71.google.com [209.85.212.71]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A588E12564 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 12:53:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f71.google.com with SMTP id x16sf5934026vbf.10 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:53:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=delivered-to:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence:list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe :sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=WgHzgJAvWcc0uz66pKYyGrnxNhSKaplJvHhyWV4fayQ=; b=VYwMilcoXdixAMe5zU2MfwVoqw0RRJa9UDnLTaQlPuF5CSFUoBkqv6IqTul09T0aOV Cl6QRDQFwLx1OkMXo7QgRw/2MAiaL8Suh4h8rI9SRd98I1wKyr1DwHpPrf68BdMPmyx9 l0MZi+rOeV84Xr4elAJQjN7akXyb5YgT5NrVnzPfgF6qZFAutHD+mHJBt03/aTK883oe /VupAzW1EOnRmH4t/8rr11vNTAFP57apJpOYk54V/llPcBqyMPR5uTOoL1pWBT9Wf2q6 x4yPcddODuHRIPrK8mJK3tDotkanOWszQHpRUe4u4TzfGpnWF+E2asUvfQRslURea6Of hkhg== X-Received: by 10.236.93.45 with SMTP id k33mr3886354yhf.19.1382637206210; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:53:26 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.49.130.233 with SMTP id oh9ls932525qeb.62.gmail; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:53:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.236.100.144 with SMTP id z16mr2547173yhf.9.1382637205993; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:53:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gg0-f197.google.com (mail-gg0-f197.google.com [209.85.161.197]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l43si877752yha.398.2013.10.24.10.53.25 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:53:25 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDW4XN6F3MIRBFN5UWJQKGQEQGJZW2Q@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-gg0-f197.google.com with SMTP id l4sf4803086ggi.0 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:53:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.59.4.176 with SMTP id cf16mr1378034ved.10.1382637205596; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:53:25 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.61.162 with SMTP id q2ls3730939igr.41.canary; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:53:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.218.104 with SMTP id pf8mr4058861pbc.1.1382637205322; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:53:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id n5si2541276pav.185.2013.10.24.10.53.24 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:53:24 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73F7911E81CF; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:53:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5014011E81CF for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:53:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tzY1SqpH7Qyq for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:53:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:d10:2000:e::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A678C21E8093 for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:51:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 17-153-16-190.fibertel.com.ar ([190.16.153.17] helo=[192.168.1.170]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1VZP3K-0001SL-4E; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 19:50:44 +0200 Message-ID: <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 14:50:22 -0300 From: Fernando Gont User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org> Subject: Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00.txt) References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Cc: draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses@tools.ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: fernando@gont.com.ar X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDW4XN6F3MIRBFN5UWJQKGQEQGJZW2Q@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBDW4XN6F3MIRBFN5UWJQKGQEQGJZW2Q@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 85 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 2908 Folks, We have posted a new I-D entitled "Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses" (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00.txt). It's a spin-off of the work we've been doing on IPv6 addressing secuity/privacy considerations (draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-address-generation-privacy and draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses), and the idea had already been discussed among several folks mstly off-list and at IETF meeting corridors. Any comments will be appreciated. Thanks! Best regards, Fernando -------- Original Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00.txt Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 15:43:46 -0700 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Fernando Gont , Will Liu , Alissa Cooper , Dave Thaler A new version of I-D, draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Fernando Gont and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses Revision: 00 Title: Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses Creation date: 2013-10-22 Group: Individual Submission Number of pages: 6 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00.txt Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00 Abstract: Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) for IPv6 typically results in hosts configuring one or more stable addresses composed of a network prefix advertised by a local router, and an Interface Identifier that typically embeds a hardware address (e.g., an IEEE LAN MAC address). The security and privacy implications of embedding hardware addresses in the Interface Identifier have been known and understood for some time now, and some popular IPv6 implementations have already deviated from such scheme to mitigate these issues. This document deprecates the use of hardware addresses in IPv6 Interface Identifiers, and recommends the use of an alternative scheme ([I-D.ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses]) for the generation of IPv6 stable addresses. Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat -- Fernando Gont e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCC77QGWVMIRBCWLUWJQKGQEICDI5IY@cs.luc.edu Thu Oct 24 13:23:07 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-pb0-f69.google.com (mail-pb0-f69.google.com [209.85.160.69]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 364E212564 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 13:23:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-pb0-f69.google.com with SMTP id mc8sf4456637pbc.0 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 11:23:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=delivered-to:from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:thread-index:cc:precedence:list-id:list-unsubscribe :list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe:sender:errors-to :mailing-list:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :content-language:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ACZ9psiSEnlA7W4SAzOIpPc4iCGOB1MPjZrwocC3p9Y=; b=ETfTrQ40U8funy4uC4v7y6lZLLCru3qJmBP+21BgoWsncVp9DGTL/TC9S1IBYMbjYw Bq3LGJT9F6P10khZDTyHAYK50iTqf6cGkm9G+Evkg6tEbXSYJtXXo4kUaJw/CEKBI1b3 IcDYqCV/LlBYKu1cDk6IwihHCv4ybkpICuUlb94eTnev1mInktMQDBmZuSiWVPFcxDVa +R1br6S3s2y4Natzr22WgdrwAwkMw2PUnrKxRsQa9hRVFdMUuJGU3tzSedD9H+jO5EPV 6dhgavHsE1c8LijABcOOFKgUTU7VQRJUjxGY5hOFKE60w58VCmlzwDKIM5xaW88uGQ/o btaw== X-Received: by 10.66.66.163 with SMTP id g3mr1631091pat.3.1382638986352; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 11:23:06 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.16.97 with SMTP id f1ls1437423igd.14.canary; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 11:23:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.120.104 with SMTP id lb8mr2838619igb.22.1382638986095; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 11:23:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-f197.google.com (mail-ie0-f197.google.com [209.85.223.197]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ih20si7515928igb.26.2013.10.24.11.23.05 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 24 Oct 2013 11:23:05 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBCOLUWJQKGQE2KUOURA@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-ie0-f197.google.com with SMTP id e14sf7768345iej.8 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 11:23:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.153.35 with SMTP id vd3mr1463823obb.37.1382638985486; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 11:23:05 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.138.229 with SMTP id qt5ls3691321igb.24.canary; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 11:23:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.66.161 with SMTP id g1mr3952696pat.175.1382638985193; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 11:23:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id kk1si1623700pbc.304.2013.10.24.11.23.05 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 11:23:05 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A679C11E8194; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 11:23:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 785AB11E8194 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 11:23:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vxx7xvdrGvKE for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 11:22:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1716A11E81E4 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 11:22:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kopoli ([193.43.158.234]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus2) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0LfCG8-1W28f62FdQ-00omdY; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 14:22:24 -0400 From: "Hosnieh Rafiee" To: "'Fernando Gont'" , "Alissa Cooper" References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> In-Reply-To: <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> Subject: RE: Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00.txt) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 20:22:16 +0200 Message-ID: <001101ced0e5$fc380120$f4a80360$@rozanak.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQJdGpkKhBNwQmPgs6BLyJ03nfzI7QLvxViamNAWRbA= X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:2OdzPr4pxm53+LgRKdd5n/cIAa+wkVGUGQlNFVMWtkP /f584HbaIZFyoPu6uvjiOPx2Vu2F+lsoLCj24QxMjgQaQCacB5 jchb7O3WIefobW6fim5xhhJmdPiQLARANxpo1sOJUDHcfW133i lSrWWcBhSAh/dlGVhkQrLs3Xwdlm6Ugw3uejHKfUu4SgNS1YFr NJ7O3tU3TRhRALQgqUhVsaVIaLUj1W/35Pim4MKdTVGHZxdoFb CL+mLGdlqc6XKMym1uQUVnaFQUkjSMa/WbOqFnrRT38jU/PBkb 2qSEnPZx7joFuNo9IUH8+UjXsXZbwdjAi5lxjq2yOjQsoHnSJu rShLa5raiyIW8tT6rpiY= Cc: ipv6@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pld@math.luc.edu X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBAABBCOLUWJQKGQE2KUOURA@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBAABBCOLUWJQKGQE2KUOURA@math.luc.edu Content-Language: en-us Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 86 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 4153 Hi, I guess you also included the section regarding ra-privacy draft in this draft. Are you going to merge my draft with yours? @Alissia: Did I missed something? I guess we discussed to keep this in my draft (the email that Ole and others were also included) I am not totally disagree with deprecating the use of EUI-64 but I would like to clarify the status of my draft that was active for some months. Thanks, -----------smile---------- Hosnieh . success is a journey, not a destination.. You cannot change your destination overnight, but you can change your direction ... Focus on the journey -----Original Message----- From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fernando Gont Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 7:50 PM To: 6man@ietf.org Cc: draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses@tools.ietf.org Subject: Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00.txt) Folks, We have posted a new I-D entitled "Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses" (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-a ddresses-00.txt). It's a spin-off of the work we've been doing on IPv6 addressing secuity/privacy considerations (draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-address-generation-privacy and draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses), and the idea had already been discussed among several folks mstly off-list and at IETF meeting corridors. Any comments will be appreciated. Thanks! Best regards, Fernando -------- Original Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00.txt Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 15:43:46 -0700 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Fernando Gont , Will Liu , Alissa Cooper , Dave Thaler A new version of I-D, draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Fernando Gont and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses Revision: 00 Title: Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses Creation date: 2013-10-22 Group: Individual Submission Number of pages: 6 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-ad dresses-00.txt Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addres ses Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-0 0 Abstract: Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) for IPv6 typically results in hosts configuring one or more stable addresses composed of a network prefix advertised by a local router, and an Interface Identifier that typically embeds a hardware address (e.g., an IEEE LAN MAC address). The security and privacy implications of embedding hardware addresses in the Interface Identifier have been known and understood for some time now, and some popular IPv6 implementations have already deviated from such scheme to mitigate these issues. This document deprecates the use of hardware addresses in IPv6 Interface Identifiers, and recommends the use of an alternative scheme ([I-D.ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses]) for the generation of IPv6 stable addresses. Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat -- Fernando Gont e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBDW4XN6F3MIRBYOAVCJQKGQESZBJZHY@cs.luc.edu Fri Oct 25 02:40:17 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-qa0-f69.google.com (mail-qa0-f69.google.com [209.85.216.69]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B137318230 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 02:40:17 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-qa0-f69.google.com with SMTP id cm18sf1746854qab.4 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 00:40:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=4HKmmKNb+IoXCFibiDZimQvsSzkZe2DYoimZEF8fki0=; b=DmNCApASmch0pWqwtU3AVrrUXDshqS4AuQLEIZH4jg27AZxlxQktYbzveASFoXk0yM 2u8/WWc9XE8efDdISU2qcB72mAbitXewvaqC0psDmXHJ/yTfFUY/bEfC09VYlpNfkEAU VaJm3E3xGyGH8B8De5dfdnNGcJr7Iimh+12xbj6XR0SM+nUMAsQBa8zuI5IVzSBFzVf+ E2o2erjATTqKR4SyX3fZN50tnsloUcxEZf9B4o/4L+cnjYV8gmFHkrcHBDVIZ0p9V2q1 qv9w/HsulkXFWsrjd0pLER1W5h7o+go4R/kIvAnMi53ViX4p+bd7kfB5P8gZJ4Cms7VR qsLg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkijeCnUBAFhMMQVaWbe7s/qpYqQlDO4MiMvgwbaiA/rX/YgS29ZO3a8b1cdmLIdipuHViQ X-Received: by 10.236.112.161 with SMTP id y21mr5329475yhg.51.1382686817380; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 00:40:17 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.49.129.166 with SMTP id nx6ls1094182qeb.12.gmail; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 00:40:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.58.107.204 with SMTP id he12mr3733713veb.26.1382686817243; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 00:40:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ve0-f198.google.com (mail-ve0-f198.google.com [209.85.128.198]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id xz7si1382040vcb.50.2013.10.25.00.40.16 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 25 Oct 2013 00:40:16 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDW4XN6F3MIRBYGAVCJQKGQEIOAYODA@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-ve0-f198.google.com with SMTP id c14sf2532129vea.9 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 00:40:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.58.94.162 with SMTP id dd2mr2800165veb.21.1382686816661; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 00:40:16 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.67.48 with SMTP id k16ls323215igt.40.gmail; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 00:40:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.255.229 with SMTP id at5mr238279pbd.130.1382686816418; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 00:40:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id yk3si4263283pac.70.2013.10.25.00.40.16 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 00:40:16 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52D0921F9FDE; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 00:40:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52ABE11E825E for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 00:40:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IPOThRgvSC6n for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 00:40:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:d10:2000:e::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3B7811E81FE for <6man@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 00:40:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 86-135-17-190.fibertel.com.ar ([190.17.135.86] helo=[192.168.1.118]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1VZc05-00068m-86; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:40:05 +0200 Message-ID: <526A204D.8080209@gont.com.ar> Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 04:39:57 -0300 From: Fernando Gont User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Fred Baker (fred)" Subject: Re: Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00.txt) References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7A268@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7A268@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: fernando@gont.com.ar X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDW4XN6F3MIRBYGAVCJQKGQEIOAYODA@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBDW4XN6F3MIRBYGAVCJQKGQEIOAYODA@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 87 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 2006 Hi, Fred, On 10/25/2013 02:16 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > IMHO, we don't need to deprecate the address type. It's OK to have > it. Deprecating it is a little more difficult than saying "oops", > it means rethinking the link-local address, which even on > non-Ethernet links stupidly presumes the presence of a MAC address > and has no alternative. draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses can be used for those... and is albeit a more general scheme that can be still be employed if the underlying interface doesn't have a MAC address. > At most, we need to say that the use of EUI-64 addresses is > optional. You mean the advice should be "SHOULD do draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses but MAY do Modified EUI-64"? or something else? Me, I'd say that the propoer advice would seem to be "SHOULD NOT do EUI-64", thus meaning that you can do it if you have a very good reason to. I don't personally bother if Modified EUI-64 is an option, as long as it's not the default option (and as long as the consequences are understood when overriding a more sane default). > Speaking for myself, I personally don't see the value of forcing a > 64 bit IID on a LAN type that uses 48 bit MAC addresses anyway. Given that MAC address duplication is a fact, and that the implications of embedding MAC addresses in the IID are well-known, I'm not sure why the length of the underlying addresses should affect the IPv6 subnet size. It results in less flexibility with no obvious gain (but yes, subnet size is unrelated to this ID, and I understand it's a controversial topic for some). Thanks! Cheers, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBDP6LUPSY4CRBXOLVKJQKGQECK5S4ZQ@cs.luc.edu Fri Oct 25 12:09:53 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-pd0-f199.google.com (mail-pd0-f199.google.com [209.85.192.199]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8E4017D61 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:09:52 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-pd0-f199.google.com with SMTP id y10sf7023482pdj.6 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:09:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:message-id:references:to:cc:precedence:list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe :sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=hnriwv8n2klO4Pqd4TeZzlr1K5J7wFAPq6pzOO6zTG8=; b=YpB/tj9HW06LXw2TfEVzG0Gl4JK8tpqPKI5SdiQy9h9o4N/+YVI97mxHdpdnQIAb3z 21PWjrdSy1GrsEVwe1oIkBF/viK6Zt0D2ulsyvQUhZYGrzz0+uz+mrwwYhcyvCZiNWct u3GbQmv8TGDDGWo1Gt6o7Mjccla658UAlGbZqbPoJiU7e8rrf25RrnfcRQq9Fz3PAaLJ 4QXhy9sEIDTg48tO0mqWXGTr8+T6numaOisa6DVWkDmwZRkQkvn5TIVU9lVjhXBte9tc BylP9BBKRTe8fvbYFnY2kZDynq1ksSwiRDhjXi2isQKg+6jlZ/8i2ZaDSyjkgk/yJdv9 k2GA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnj8qZ4zmStXiDs3BnwetggiDi78c6P81ClCET0uMyE3Qu9aVhb0fgOPsKAHZoAjU9YXjR0 X-Received: by 10.67.4.202 with SMTP id cg10mr3603684pad.42.1382720989879; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:09:49 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.49.82.43 with SMTP id f11ls1226930qey.33.gmail; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:09:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.94.172 with SMTP id dd12mr12488922qeb.4.1382720989701; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:09:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qe0-f72.google.com (mail-qe0-f72.google.com [209.85.128.72]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id cz2si3387710qeb.109.2013.10.25.10.09.49 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:09:49 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDP6LUPSY4CRBXOLVKJQKGQEYMY6NNY@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-qe0-f72.google.com with SMTP id b4sf9972117qen.3 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:09:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.58.181.69 with SMTP id du5mr3577340vec.7.1382720989521; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:09:49 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.43.164 with SMTP id x4ls521202igl.13.canary; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:09:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.17.132 with SMTP id o4mr8036623pbd.44.1382720989329; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:09:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id dj3si4640575pbc.310.2013.10.25.10.09.49 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:09:49 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E1D111E81AD; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:09:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44C1111E831A for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:09:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mvfFDPjCg-cw for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:09:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [83.247.10.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2414111E8361 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:09:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE1964A; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 19:09:35 +0200 (CEST) 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 10024) with ESMTP id ENhkW5dlcxRM; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 19:09:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ip212-238-89-84.hotspotsvankpn.com (ip212-238-89-84.hotspotsvankpn.com [212.238.89.84]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5D20638; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 19:09:26 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\)) Subject: Re: Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00.txt) From: Sander Steffann In-Reply-To: <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 19:09:24 +0200 Message-Id: <138388CE-99F3-4F14-A17B-2D8CB2D55EFA@steffann.nl> References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> To: Alexandru Petrescu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816) Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org 6man-wg" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: sander@steffann.nl X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDP6LUPSY4CRBXOLVKJQKGQEYMY6NNY@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBDP6LUPSY4CRBXOLVKJQKGQEYMY6NNY@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 88 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 937 Hi, > If we're again at deprecating things one aspect that I'd really like > removed is this 64bit border for SLAAC over Ethernet. > > One should be able to do SLAAC over Ethernet (and all its backward > compatible IEEE links) with Interface Identifiers optionally shorter > than 64bit. Now *that* would make those poor souls that only get one /64 from their ISP very happy :-) I actually would like to see prefix lengths larger than 64 be supported for SLAAC. Is there actually a technical reason that it is not allowed? (hardware optimising for /64s come to mind now) Otherwise I think it would be nice to make the specs a bit more flexible and allow it. Cheers, Sander -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCC3BTNNVUNBBDW2VKJQKGQEJOGO7TA@cs.luc.edu Fri Oct 25 12:40:31 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-oa0-f72.google.com (mail-oa0-f72.google.com [209.85.219.72]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C7A117D61 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:40:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-oa0-f72.google.com with SMTP id m17sf4073849oag.7 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:40:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:precedence:list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe :sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=3gQWcAfFOo6cIyYmCnHGXUUxxrIOVSnQrFCc552Z6/c=; b=BDWuVymKndCYSG33FUFnlaEFdteXC3q7INHlUx6wj6wtCouTWxwxBA3PpkRkHY593N ftJq9ffevYBGZnaTb7lo3BM01t/PaF/UMFpu4uongrXqgmaysKSivlm9yYTftRcFOyka mYM08FVYwXkfAdq8klg5Gm+iWFuuscnBftHD78HOPZdI4B9HsiJuabojEGde2sC75Zpn WP5fpGM/lOJToEmZvu38x9MLqzZfIWGRowWG/RN/Nl7WlxcNznQ/Qvuds1lKvVWoGBYm cL4F9abeUXa0O16YuYQj2adJexs2fmxwZxmVHev4P0ayfnsfVKGYtMJfrnMZbLk2H4Aw VrIA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn5dcgSBM5aVN13sYobHRJbx5iWlmiDCFBAcbJXUQrKpne2zUpRv50O+1FWkmIoJ5kqI2qM X-Received: by 10.182.27.36 with SMTP id q4mr1923854obg.7.1382722830914; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:40:30 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.49.59.82 with SMTP id x18ls1288147qeq.88.gmail; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:40:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.127.20 with SMTP id nc20mr12194279qeb.90.1382722830797; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:40:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-f199.google.com (mail-qc0-f199.google.com [209.85.216.199]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w2si69428qef.87.2013.10.25.10.40.30 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:40:30 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCC3BTNNVUNBBDW2VKJQKGQECIJQRRQ@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-qc0-f199.google.com with SMTP id q4sf9235177qcx.2 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:40:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.236.127.199 with SMTP id d47mr9096667yhi.29.1382722830486; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:40:30 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.101.51 with SMTP id fd19ls545969igb.10.canary; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:40:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.25.6 with SMTP id y6mr5900223paf.180.1382722830297; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:40:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id yj4si5663144pac.311.2013.10.25.10.40.30 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:40:30 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 012FD11E81AD; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:40:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA86B11E81AD for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:40:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eAb0aPpSUN0N for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:40:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:d10:2000:e::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0408411E8359 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:40:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [186.134.63.155] (helo=[192.168.0.6]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1VZlMw-0003t3-Ln; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 19:40:19 +0200 Message-ID: <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:38:45 -0300 From: Fernando Gont User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexandru Petrescu , ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00.txt) References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: fgont@si6networks.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCC3BTNNVUNBBDW2VKJQKGQECIJQRRQ@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBCC3BTNNVUNBBDW2VKJQKGQECIJQRRQ@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 89 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 939 On 10/25/2013 01:54 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > If we're again at deprecating things one aspect that I'd really like > removed is this 64bit border for SLAAC over Ethernet. > > One should be able to do SLAAC over Ethernet (and all its backward > compatible IEEE links) with Interface Identifiers optionally shorter > than 64bit. If there's something else that needs to be fixed, then please: 1) Write an I-D that analyzes the problem, and proposes a workaround, and, 2) start a new thread. :-) Let's keep this thread on-topic. ;-) Cheers, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCVZZPXGZMDRBXMNVOJQKGQEHAYQFYY@cs.luc.edu Fri Oct 25 14:30:38 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-yh0-f72.google.com (mail-yh0-f72.google.com [209.85.213.72]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A73B17D61 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:30:38 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-yh0-f72.google.com with SMTP id z20sf10833572yhz.7 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:30:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:message-id:references:to:cc:precedence:list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe :sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=kMLSYtrz7U9tPMudgjlWbNvrivhivpRRk+HBiMtgY4M=; b=g8RUjk97HgJN8dBgVNXZKKJ9MHD3FSWI1jw75PwlkCmO/RxJc5gAfcQWWgT3ZJtAro n27XT43KF/Ku+7x0eDSm1e3AwzNmIiUUbaVGtMJxd5FlG+x/35Y7BDccAEau/lEWcyxp QGLMGqWnlKiItBTTYlaci4++x0POBHwP5L+lHX6AiGvGEOhV/Qd3Wxn32ADpuxQzasB0 7VoqonrVeEc3TDEDVnqhms9/nTvB1GNODbjINLF4WprUmxE+k2EDOf0oeF9AnIb35j62 YiugZoo2heVYhySIV9IJukB96t50PVQZzRcoENX9DXVwUQRTHGxwIYIv2JapbBfP6bhT FYEA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnu0RSHRsIP95/a+7xOMUoZttYIROumvvjv9Mxis71varn3JdB6qx57v7nfRic8mq5z4XTn X-Received: by 10.58.187.197 with SMTP id fu5mr4000437vec.34.1382729437816; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:30:37 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.49.18.199 with SMTP id y7ls1252376qed.78.gmail; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:30:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.236.125.102 with SMTP id y66mr6419048yhh.58.1382729437687; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:30:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yh0-f72.google.com (mail-yh0-f72.google.com [209.85.213.72]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 63si3288539yhi.279.2013.10.25.12.30.37 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:30:37 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCVZZPXGZMDRBW4NVOJQKGQEA5OH24Y@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-yh0-f72.google.com with SMTP id z20sf10809586yhz.3 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:30:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.236.136.199 with SMTP id w47mr8499290yhi.56.1382729435850; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:30:35 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.22.99 with SMTP id c3ls627562igf.7.canary; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:30:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.139.38 with SMTP id qv6mr12406248pab.59.1382729435573; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:30:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id dj3si4945404pbc.190.2013.10.25.12.30.35 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:30:35 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B30BE11E81CF; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:30:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B323811E81C1 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:30:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3JkNoECkIq6s for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:30:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0919F11E81B6 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:30:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r9PJUJ2K017612; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 20:30:19 +0100 X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk r9PJUJ2K017612 Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id p9OKUJ0959610014kb ret-id none; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 20:30:19 +0100 Received: from [192.168.1.107] (host213-123-213-183.in-addr.btopenworld.com [213.123.213.183]) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r9PJUFYa022654 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 25 Oct 2013 20:30:16 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) Subject: Re: Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00.txt) From: Tim Chown In-Reply-To: <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 20:30:15 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> To: Fernando Gont X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean X-smtpf-Report: sid=p9OKUJ095961001400; tid=p9OKUJ0959610014kb; client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=3:0; fails=0 X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: r9PJUJ2K017612 X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk Cc: Alexandru Petrescu , ipv6@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCVZZPXGZMDRBW4NVOJQKGQEA5OH24Y@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBCVZZPXGZMDRBW4NVOJQKGQEA5OH24Y@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 90 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 1131 On 25 Oct 2013, at 18:38, Fernando Gont wrote: > On 10/25/2013 01:54 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: >> If we're again at deprecating things one aspect that I'd really like >> removed is this 64bit border for SLAAC over Ethernet. >> >> One should be able to do SLAAC over Ethernet (and all its backward >> compatible IEEE links) with Interface Identifiers optionally shorter >> than 64bit. > > If there's something else that needs to be fixed, then please: > > 1) Write an I-D that analyzes the problem, and proposes a workaround, and, > > 2) start a new thread. :-) > > Let's keep this thread on-topic. ;-) Well, you're proposing deprecating EUI-64, so there is no longer any reason to be constrained to /64.... so your replacement should consider the possibility of it being used with longer subnet prefixes at some point in the future? Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCC3BTNNVUNBBUERVOJQKGQE2NOPCGY@cs.luc.edu Fri Oct 25 14:38:57 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-ve0-f199.google.com (mail-ve0-f199.google.com [209.85.128.199]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D449018DB for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:38:56 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-ve0-f199.google.com with SMTP id pa12sf8502869veb.2 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:38:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ug8XmqjxvC4vqYn2woYtgulA7io6FfLxwAV9GJ6n/94=; b=bbcEEtlaYWhFBVW+hy733qVS09i43yzCBY5CjWOjQLe8DCqx8LHX6ParBPDCSRr4Cd 0mhy5Bjl/QbVcnIGFc6MCTN61ZsP5GR2JgGy2MPSiCv1RfQbJCSgKduCrN7/+KJRZNVA pRzfQwDb2h9xo1gL4fn2n5h30diSmXAuVgaCLMqEOrNHwgMtuzmM5dUA8sG+VRsQUV+I lbO57X6CnkebvCVNiPzsONxcMWDMhjSCPe3lOX37gic+7fe8eKHUlOUHQCW2bHREHKIP dSlmOCWu2EDUx0Njyq2YnxjGdtk21b/eLvlMS2UQaBErl4VfM+lKCZv8ZEaxVbg4iNvL lVAw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlYsFiWHxNWT1YIKn7TaDVUaRoaf49k6Z24LKiNi+TMgfLWetccWq6SxuSAXocsd61uemiE X-Received: by 10.236.135.79 with SMTP id t55mr9624002yhi.39.1382729936285; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:38:56 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.49.1.102 with SMTP id 6ls1285041qel.40.gmail; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:38:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.224.80.4 with SMTP id r4mr13594345qak.69.1382729936144; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:38:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-f71.google.com (mail-qa0-f71.google.com [209.85.216.71]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o10si4352310qas.137.2013.10.25.12.38.55 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:38:55 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCC3BTNNVUNBBT4RVOJQKGQERXR67UQ@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-qa0-f71.google.com with SMTP id w8sf3478462qac.6 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:38:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.52.31.69 with SMTP id y5mr3304326vdh.4.1382729935712; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:38:55 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.136.198 with SMTP id qc6ls582529igb.42.canary; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:38:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.170.168 with SMTP id an8mr12466186pac.58.1382729935504; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:38:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id mi5si5919612pab.193.2013.10.25.12.38.55 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:38:55 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C06A11E8178; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:38:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DED2511E81B2 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:38:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kHXFqkDKVagB for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:38:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:d10:2000:e::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9928711E81CB for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:38:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [186.134.63.155] (helo=[192.168.0.6]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1VZnDd-0006kV-8w; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 21:38:49 +0200 Message-ID: <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:38:23 -0300 From: Fernando Gont User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Chown Subject: Re: Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00.txt) References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Cc: Alexandru Petrescu , ipv6@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: fgont@si6networks.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCC3BTNNVUNBBT4RVOJQKGQERXR67UQ@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBCC3BTNNVUNBBT4RVOJQKGQERXR67UQ@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 91 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 1404 On 10/25/2013 04:30 PM, Tim Chown wrote: >>> One should be able to do SLAAC over Ethernet (and all its >>> backward compatible IEEE links) with Interface Identifiers >>> optionally shorter than 64bit. >> >> If there's something else that needs to be fixed, then please: >> >> 1) Write an I-D that analyzes the problem, and proposes a >> workaround, and, >> >> 2) start a new thread. :-) >> >> Let's keep this thread on-topic. ;-) > > Well, you're proposing deprecating EUI-64, so there is no longer any > reason to be constrained to /64.... Is this the sole reason for requiring subnets to be a /64? > so your replacement should > consider the possibility of it being used with longer subnet prefixes > at some point in the future? It is considered in draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses, already (although it notes that IPv6 are currently required to be 64 bits long) -- i.e., if the /64 requirement were to change, we're still fine with draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses. Thanks! Cheers, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBDBKXOOA7UDRBOU4V2JQKGQEHD377DQ@cs.luc.edu Sat Oct 26 04:41:14 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-ie0-f198.google.com (mail-ie0-f198.google.com [209.85.223.198]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B95161807F for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 04:41:14 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f198.google.com with SMTP id tp5sf14203003ieb.5 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 02:41:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:subject:mime-version:from :in-reply-to:date:message-id:references:to:cc:precedence:list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe :sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=13XbIRa3zU4fzHxQ3t4hoQc4FJIYvBkrlZRsNN+AdZw=; b=m77QeRPYrMkC0Q35JB+02LnFBwfxHwLJTs4GKpwmAfIzD4sKX2OjDWfuQ/tFvce0sf TEZXWLmV4hqCeLXT7jzGi9j3SoNSJJGeHmB+sPB5KyOIAGRgIzKIAbNHtBL83KVuiY3D 1tLwJPGZNOPreHCRb1bENQ+YPSY+Npa6i3en5Tq1Z7IVgdvmVzyfLoldw443WdEYqhOl xGe3bsCp1i0NKil4kuH0bIgGCrhGkQQMwt0id1Nq3G9VNnPCPj+8E1/UScGnj/tTte5F BTNQiP3VANvkqVTfMkmCeRAHxMqNBh0sr1FI+8rIOjvZhYlekfoVcdshd7nCvCDpMpiw vlWQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlmu7Dwd4zb3Kwv6rZVJAywQL2MzbmqeY1okFtvBrfqA4LH0xC0Uocs6mM1sbFliv5x3EJs X-Received: by 10.42.207.206 with SMTP id fz14mr4188196icb.2.1382780474418; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 02:41:14 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.49.94.114 with SMTP id db18ls1417569qeb.66.gmail; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 02:41:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.224.161.146 with SMTP id r18mr16673046qax.57.1382780474291; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 02:41:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-f198.google.com (mail-qc0-f198.google.com [209.85.216.198]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g1si5829024qaz.172.2013.10.26.02.41.14 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 26 Oct 2013 02:41:14 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDBKXOOA7UDRBOM4V2JQKGQEU6AU2PQ@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-qc0-f198.google.com with SMTP id k18sf11351857qcv.5 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 02:41:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.236.56.70 with SMTP id l46mr12655976yhc.2.1382780473862; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 02:41:13 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.110.69 with SMTP id hy5ls837793igb.31.canary; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 02:41:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.244.168 with SMTP id xh8mr11121811pbc.3.1382780473427; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 02:41:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id dk5si6612746pbc.46.2013.10.26.02.41.13 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 02:41:13 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 046B521F969F; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 02:41:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AD6C11E8174 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 02:41:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cfrq1GL2kvh0 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 02:41:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F4EB11E8171 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 02:40:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9Q9er3m014020; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 11:40:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p54892A8D.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.42.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3889CBD0; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 11:40:53 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00.txt) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <138388CE-99F3-4F14-A17B-2D8CB2D55EFA@steffann.nl> Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 11:40:51 +0200 Message-Id: <015A331F-8894-4A43-B3E8-E77DE7312595@tzi.org> References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <138388CE-99F3-4F14-A17B-2D8CB2D55EFA@steffann.nl> To: Sander Steffann X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816) Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org 6man-wg" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: cabo@tzi.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDBKXOOA7UDRBOM4V2JQKGQEU6AU2PQ@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBDBKXOOA7UDRBOM4V2JQKGQEU6AU2PQ@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-UID: 92 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 914 On 25 Oct 2013, at 19:09, Sander Steffann wrote: > make the specs a bit more flexible Flexibility is overrated. If you make it easier for a site to live with a /64 by making it easier to = split that into /80 networks, the next thing you=92ll notice that sites sta= rt to be allocated /80s. There has never been a reason to give a site a /64. So arguing =93there is= no reason to give a site a /80=94 is besides the point. It is just a logi= cal consequence of the principle of pushing out work to others. Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten PS.: Besides, a 64-bit IID is the minimum size where the birthday paradox i= s unlikely to bite you. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBDE2VF755AJBB56MV2JQKGQEAKTVX4A@cs.luc.edu Sat Oct 26 06:24:40 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-ob0-f198.google.com (mail-ob0-f198.google.com [209.85.214.198]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 035881807F for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 06:24:39 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-ob0-f198.google.com with SMTP id wp18sf6801919obc.1 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 04:24:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:from:to:subject:thread-topic :thread-index:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:mime-version:cc:precedence:list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe :content-type:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results; bh=VbbcYYCtuB/CTZ4t3SigqaD0poYspokUjFpy3LyxVbU=; b=e1KWNIGTgY9BpJHSNUqNsU1SfWR8n7F4Kl66s2uHs+BVtFjPqshKV4Qg0kii1tJ0hJ KwOSRI+iB6c5u4szwMWKLxxpct1EIcFUr7NujZNZYLAsyFnQ4pQQq/mGUY51wsD1SPq0 1YtstsO3uK0xS3BXYStgBWNPkaUXsZZZeU1sR4C6wyh7ZpRqn9zk//phQUKsfkcSp1UO 886vyzEfOhuRAumBmFPRyllKu82/FyjbG942Kk3BDVYXyO8HLPU9zZfh952L43j31pE1 4JFlrsxGbCKyODyyjRmxKvfkouaKuafj8RbdCPl5pV+z/uQujIdkerdH4SJyUV+33R9X sMSw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkIZZf5A5UFwKudJvBd1RxjvGd5kfRrcQHlz9ZMZK0VsYuClpjoPt1ID7kg9Uq0M5s3m5v7 X-Received: by 10.43.65.81 with SMTP id xl17mr4261710icb.29.1382786679536; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 04:24:39 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.49.12.176 with SMTP id z16ls1528614qeb.16.gmail; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 04:24:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.52.34.109 with SMTP id y13mr6336494vdi.8.1382786678987; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 04:24:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f70.google.com (mail-vb0-f70.google.com [209.85.212.70]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id tq4si3080173vdc.116.2013.10.26.04.24.38 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 26 Oct 2013 04:24:38 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDE2VF755AJBB5WMV2JQKGQECDHQLEQ@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-vb0-f70.google.com with SMTP id m10sf10838492vbh.1 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 04:24:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.236.32.74 with SMTP id n50mr12927562yha.13.1382786678728; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 04:24:38 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.118.97 with SMTP id kl1ls870677igb.35.canary; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 04:24:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.168.7 with SMTP id zs7mr868237pab.152.1382786678526; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 04:24:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id ln9si7771335pab.131.2013.10.26.04.24.38 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 04:24:38 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 944E211E8112; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 04:24:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6645611E824A for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 04:24:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id irR6z8dhswSL for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 04:24:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94B2311E8186 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 04:24:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Files: signature.asc : 195 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgMFACqma1KtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABZgweBDL5OgR4WdIIlAQEBAwF3AgULAgEIDhQZCzIlAgQOBQgGh3MGuEiPJDEHgx+BDQOQLYEwmDSBaIE+gio X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,576,1378857600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="276991611" Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Oct 2013 11:24:04 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com [173.37.183.89]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r9QBO3ns000906 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sat, 26 Oct 2013 11:24:03 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.23]) by xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([173.37.183.89]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 06:24:03 -0500 From: "Fred Baker (fred)" To: Carsten Bormann Subject: Re: Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00.txt) Thread-Topic: Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00.txt) Thread-Index: AQHO0aUPq0S7Vs80bkauiNcL+ai8l5oHD3GAgAAczIA= Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 11:24:03 +0000 Message-ID: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7BA90@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <138388CE-99F3-4F14-A17B-2D8CB2D55EFA@steffann.nl> <015A331F-8894-4A43-B3E8-E77DE7312595@tzi.org> In-Reply-To: <015A331F-8894-4A43-B3E8-E77DE7312595@tzi.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.61.197.203] MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org 6man-wg" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3032630209526523439==" Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: fred@cisco.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDE2VF755AJBB5WMV2JQKGQECDHQLEQ@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBDE2VF755AJBB5WMV2JQKGQECDHQLEQ@math.luc.edu X-UID: 93 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 2696 --===============3032630209526523439== Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7E6DB478-FC60-4FCD-84B3-43646F022A19"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 --Apple-Mail=_7E6DB478-FC60-4FCD-84B3-43646F022A19 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 On Oct 26, 2013, at 11:40 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > PS.: Besides, a 64-bit IID is the minimum size where the birthday = paradox is unlikely to bite you. Given that, in the EUI-64 as we use it, 16 bits are absolutely = predictable (we insert a well-known 16 bits), I'd be interested to see = the proof that the modified EUI-64 and the EUI-48 are even *different* = with respect to the birthday paradox. Further, a discussion of the length of a field with respect to the = birthday paradox depends on a lot of things. If the NICs in use tend to = come from a single vendor (How many Lenovo PCs are their in your = company?), 22 bits are highly likely to be that vendor's Vendor Code. 2 = bits are predictable from the fact that it is an assigned unicast = address. So the probability of a collision in that case is determined by = 24 bits of the original MAC address, not the fact that it is represented = in a 48 or 64 bit container. If the birthday paradox tells us that a 64 bit Modified EUI-64 is = adequate, then a random (24 + log2(number of vendor codes in use on a = given LAN)) bit number is adequate. This is also non-responsive to the DHCP question; the probability of = assigning the same IID to two different interfaces in that case = correlates with the ability of the operator to manage IIDs, not = probability functions. --Apple-Mail=_7E6DB478-FC60-4FCD-84B3-43646F022A19 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iD8DBQFSa6ZLbjEdbHIsm0MRAo5kAKDQEkpv6IJvKY0nlWa7SCXkxTBSqwCeJjFo V6lB+2wbdODN7BdMfqjTYTE= =VN/F -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_7E6DB478-FC60-4FCD-84B3-43646F022A19-- --===============3032630209526523439== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- --===============3032630209526523439==-- From pld+bncBDE2VF755AJBBH6XV2JQKGQEAHNHXPA@cs.luc.edu Sat Oct 26 06:46:40 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-ob0-f197.google.com (mail-ob0-f197.google.com [209.85.214.197]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F30521807F for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 06:46:39 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-ob0-f197.google.com with SMTP id vb8sf6864376obc.8 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 04:46:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:from:to:subject:thread-topic :thread-index:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:mime-version:cc:precedence:list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe :content-type:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results; bh=MbGE5oUgSqVa/M3BfVqZ0Lr2TgsrR0/Rywiz5tWIQ0I=; b=SfTdTMA/jDBMmDmzS7O6DjTOgfcMohWB2EU2uy5lENHsM8LL0ON6gNFpGLvRtawD8E rGqodN3oP2DbOFBZBmQNriR93YlQMjxeg9edAyXePqbtJO1+gzefJXfF6msB5aYZ163p 3YFJWLSsSilpTA9uqiQwmyBQwYycUv0hMG49n3EguP2fdpXHTce/m+N6KgsIDvnCyurH 2BN9lEvsXeiyVUbhIxvm8/rJI9YE6NWabkYwCgLHvR1Gx+BfDlnDUyVTwh6jQAqpEOlq gmA+CryOdgKFnKBkEflSTru/+3j3phWfSsNC7v/vXyQm52ubZyJr3G0XU5uA7J4jUWJR tMIQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnk1sEDW1OmYgEuPC5drL6gEh8p48EhWs0TocHZtkNPHbTcDjan2CAVVWcT8poJZAYiPJNM X-Received: by 10.42.62.8 with SMTP id w8mr4092751ich.23.1382787999603; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 04:46:39 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.49.35.133 with SMTP id h5ls1476322qej.54.gmail; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 04:46:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.98.100 with SMTP id eh4mr16701062qeb.42.1382787999459; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 04:46:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-f198.google.com (mail-qc0-f198.google.com [209.85.216.198]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r8si2350033qck.82.2013.10.26.04.46.39 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 26 Oct 2013 04:46:39 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDE2VF755AJBBHWXV2JQKGQE4OAMEXA@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-qc0-f198.google.com with SMTP id k18sf11582415qcv.5 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 04:46:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.236.24.195 with SMTP id x43mr11544859yhx.3.1382787998995; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 04:46:38 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.118.97 with SMTP id kl1ls885079igb.35.canary; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 04:46:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.200.233 with SMTP id jv9mr11694336pbc.7.1382787998819; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 04:46:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id ad7si6841325pbd.208.2013.10.26.04.46.38 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 04:46:38 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF00B11E810E; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 04:46:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D23AB11E8232 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 04:46:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NVBenusftozk for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 04:46:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA40211E817A for <6man@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 04:46:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Files: signature.asc : 195 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgMFAM2qa1KtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABZgweBDL5OgR4WdIIlAQEBAwF3AgULAgEIIhkLMhcBDQIEDgUIBodzBrhIjyQxB4MfgQ0DkC2BMJg0gWiBPoIq X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,576,1378857600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="276994949" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Oct 2013 11:45:59 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com [173.36.12.78]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r9QBjxjW018915 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sat, 26 Oct 2013 11:45:59 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.23]) by xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com ([173.36.12.78]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 06:45:58 -0500 From: "Fred Baker (fred)" To: Fernando Gont Subject: Re: Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00.txt) Thread-Topic: Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00.txt) Thread-Index: AQHO0VVwKLd/nawZzUOPqLyJvbz9W5oHMv2A Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 11:45:58 +0000 Message-ID: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7BABF@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7A268@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526A204D.8080209@gont.com.ar> In-Reply-To: <526A204D.8080209@gont.com.ar> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.61.197.203] MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0858749473794265495==" Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: fred@cisco.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDE2VF755AJBBHWXV2JQKGQE4OAMEXA@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBDE2VF755AJBBHWXV2JQKGQE4OAMEXA@math.luc.edu X-UID: 94 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 3586 --===============0858749473794265495== Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6F97A630-26B5-461F-B04F-640EBB52C0AD"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 --Apple-Mail=_6F97A630-26B5-461F-B04F-640EBB52C0AD Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 On Oct 25, 2013, at 9:39 AM, Fernando Gont wrote: > You mean the advice should be "SHOULD do = draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses but MAY do Modified EUI-64"? or = something else? >=20 > Me, I'd say that the propoer advice would seem to be "SHOULD NOT do = EUI-64", thus meaning that you can do it if you have a very good reason = to. >=20 > I don't personally bother if Modified EUI-64 is an option, as long as = it's not the default option (and as long as the consequences are = understood when overriding a more sane default). I'll agree with you that it is fine as an option if not the default. = Like you, I prefer a random number when SLAAC is in use. I find a lot of = the discussion of "but you can't randomize the bit" tiresome; = there is no case that I'm aware of in which we look at individual bits = in the IID to determine how it was generated, and we certainly do not = try to extract a MAC address from it. So imposing MAC Address = definitions on bits in the IID is an unreasonable hobble. But "MAY" vs "SHOULD NOT"? If it can happen at all, then the vast = majority of systems, that base the IID on a MAC address, have every = reason to continue to do so. Until they have all been retired (how many = systems in the world still run Windows 95?) we will have some that do. = And by the way, the fact that someone in the IETF wrote an RFC tends to = not motivate vendors; customer requirements motivate vendors. The MAC = Address basis will get changed in time, but will do so when customers = ask about it, not when the RFC Editor has finished the document = publication process. =46rom my very pragmatic perspective, there is = value in recognizing the fact. Oh, by the way, there will be those that think that cryptographically = generated and therefore secure (for some definition of that term) = addresses have value, and the IETF will continue to recommend that. And = then there are addresses that are manually or DHCP/DHCPv6 assigned. = You're welcome to your opinions; they're not going away soon. So I would not quibble over the status of the RFC 4291/4862 model beyond = saying that *IF* SLAAC is in use, one *SHOULD* use RFC 4941 or = draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses. --Apple-Mail=_6F97A630-26B5-461F-B04F-640EBB52C0AD Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iD8DBQFSa6tvbjEdbHIsm0MRAmC4AKCMYqR8uTUJBwX4LSGYcdoPWKG7RACeIVxM 0y1hA5WscuTOzbSsOXqr4SY= =UnCH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_6F97A630-26B5-461F-B04F-640EBB52C0AD-- --===============0858749473794265495== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- --===============0858749473794265495==-- From pld+bncBDE2VF755AJBBX4ZV6JQKGQED6OJFGA@cs.luc.edu Sat Oct 26 09:08:31 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-qe0-f70.google.com (mail-qe0-f70.google.com [209.85.128.70]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C827518230 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 09:08:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-qe0-f70.google.com with SMTP id 8sf12910924qea.5 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 07:08:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:from:to:subject:thread-topic :thread-index:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:mime-version:cc:precedence:list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe :content-type:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results; bh=/U1+HqenmXnPzruFX12K4tdG4vpXIU0YfRGCCcHXjd8=; b=Ksv8+eF6+d5KYrG28MuHMwwqNXzTTNXdk7Pc+VyLJggzxT0am5btCoTByJlsAomNmi olztxwHC+E5AX+ZPKz45sekRxUslkiGLGRLboSUrXB7FSR56ayL6P+ZEjYqCY5so1fEy NPZkm7SZFS0/B5W27torDn14gFslxlmPtAGcybVMyQSMaM0w2zm2p4YDyiQefj/dKHPx IhA6Qs9ztHSc8w4HS8L//s1kfzlluJPBZg5vXFKOerRxLGzEyJwRo3UMLBn3h5082m0D f5tw3X3jllAZug75vY5xT0939nd4ePOf6WCETJNs2oPjQLcp3vJidJEVivE/6mxBc6EC z3BA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlbYGDSm9suLObqOEHdnLbTm95TV7UBt3xm1h7ZNq9W01JudeLEqD9A0+S1/Hfi/f/0cTQT X-Received: by 10.236.94.39 with SMTP id m27mr436699yhf.54.1382796511432; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 07:08:31 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.136.198 with SMTP id qc6ls854868igb.42.canary; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 07:08:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.4.197 with SMTP id m5mr12190367pbm.46.1382796511205; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 07:08:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-f69.google.com (mail-pa0-f69.google.com [209.85.220.69]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hb3si8086573pac.239.2013.10.26.07.08.30 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 26 Oct 2013 07:08:30 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDE2VF755AJBBXUZV6JQKGQEBC3I43A@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-pa0-f69.google.com with SMTP id kx10sf4451892pab.0 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 07:08:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.146.65 with SMTP id ta1mr5593265pab.19.1382796510737; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 07:08:30 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.11.105 with SMTP id p9ls1056478igb.40.canary; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 07:08:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.100.227 with SMTP id fb3mr16286874pab.26.1382796510474; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 07:08:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id w1si8081737pan.228.2013.10.26.07.08.30 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 07:08:30 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EACA811E82A3; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 07:08:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E45DC11E82AB for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 07:08:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZGZ9A-rdrLiN for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 07:07:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CE9211E82A2 for <6man@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 07:07:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Files: signature.asc : 195 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgsFAB7Ma1KtJXHA/2dsb2JhbABZgweBDL5OgSAWdIIlAQEBAwF3AhACAQgEARMKGQshESUCBA4FCAaHZwMJBq4+DYlrjGWCPzEHgx+BDQOQLYEwhEKOO4U3gWiBPoIq X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,576,1378857600"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="277029953" Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Oct 2013 14:07:44 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com [173.36.12.87]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r9QE7hiA022896 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sat, 26 Oct 2013 14:07:43 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.23]) by xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com ([173.36.12.87]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 09:07:43 -0500 From: "Fred Baker (fred)" To: Scott Brim Subject: Re: Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00.txt) Thread-Topic: Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00.txt) Thread-Index: AQHO0kyVMUtljwaBoECV1N1dSIOQ2ZoHWLCA Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 14:07:43 +0000 Message-ID: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7BC27@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7A268@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526A204D.8080209@gont.com.ar> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7BABF@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.61.200.22] MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, Fernando Gont , "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5260573819897682206==" Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: fred@cisco.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDE2VF755AJBBXUZV6JQKGQEBC3I43A@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBDE2VF755AJBBXUZV6JQKGQEBC3I43A@math.luc.edu X-UID: 95 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 3819 --===============5260573819897682206== Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5257F404-DE38-4DE9-9B55-94E3904F6A8A"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 --Apple-Mail=_5257F404-DE38-4DE9-9B55-94E3904F6A8A Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_47854CB6-A16A-4B79-B860-D6A0974A93B8" --Apple-Mail=_47854CB6-A16A-4B79-B860-D6A0974A93B8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 On Oct 26, 2013, at 3:08 PM, Scott Brim wrote: >=20 > On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Fred Baker (fred) = wrote: > But "MAY" vs "SHOULD NOT"? If it can happen at all, then the vast = majority of systems, that base the IID on a MAC address, have every = reason to continue to do so. >=20 > It seems reasonable to me to document a recommendation, for the = future, even if it will take 15 years for the not-best-practice to fade. = Therefore it seems reasonable to me to put in a SHOULD, along with all = of the reasons discussed here why the installed base doesn't have to at = this time. Which is the argument for saying "should 4861 or = stable-privacy-addresses". --Apple-Mail=_47854CB6-A16A-4B79-B860-D6A0974A93B8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Which is the argument for saying "should 4861 or stable-privacy-addresses".

--Apple-Mail=_47854CB6-A16A-4B79-B860-D6A0974A93B8-- --Apple-Mail=_5257F404-DE38-4DE9-9B55-94E3904F6A8A Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iD8DBQFSa8ytbjEdbHIsm0MRAq7dAJ9Fsool+fxaoRmvYl3CE4hWskaB4ACdFLmT 1xIJskEBHeVdjp8i8PLEV50= =JcQN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_5257F404-DE38-4DE9-9B55-94E3904F6A8A-- --===============5260573819897682206== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- --===============5260573819897682206==-- From pld+bncBDBKXOOA7UDRBZM2V6JQKGQEFRR6TPY@cs.luc.edu Sat Oct 26 09:10:45 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-ie0-f198.google.com (mail-ie0-f198.google.com [209.85.223.198]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4D6418230 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 09:10:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f198.google.com with SMTP id tp5sf14753096ieb.9 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 07:10:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:subject:mime-version:from :in-reply-to:date:message-id:references:to:cc:precedence:list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe :sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=MWci7sFHuQM9McaDf4MY1+sdWqLpeh/tt2lEK/iJrH8=; b=KZRsiE9J+sR4Egqo4t7GIOh5Uc4wD7RIEiK1ufUvCFhrPdRINf2yHfqDiWvNajcbQe 9aAd0yQzQ5DFt1NQFUivZzqF4cgk0qOUwNeL1C1ZRgl9CKiyu8d9fnB1HEgutzkWXXnf DkL6Pu7kbPUXOHYMBe60LsEs3qRoWXTC4e04HBQBwAGLd+Hev9khnU7uX1MXaub/6FH2 iq+a1iZw4615KD6Up/hdaexUbaHuV83/w8WovqQya/HICkJDpKqQtoelZsQxJ1YqsMxc slz0HLTN54LduhP/gpY5RLCO5ONx/eHpJDfIOPfvXY/YCZ7yjQQ3WBdatuDp4oAzl9Uz /t7A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmo+XLlX+3ddTyLIUTanpd0WMDxf9/G1h0Cy2X1AbmGEAHLhtITOhkgrbYdOmpVUPVNTW1Z X-Received: by 10.42.112.138 with SMTP id y10mr4580533icp.28.1382796645369; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 07:10:45 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.182.60.202 with SMTP id j10ls894724obr.75.gmail; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 07:10:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.28.134 with SMTP id b6mr7427330obh.27.1382796645231; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 07:10:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f198.google.com (mail-ob0-f198.google.com [209.85.214.198]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id kg5si4867600oeb.11.2013.10.26.07.10.44 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 26 Oct 2013 07:10:44 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDBKXOOA7UDRBZE2V6JQKGQE6IZYAZY@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-ob0-f198.google.com with SMTP id wp18sf7170002obc.9 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 07:10:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.129.48 with SMTP id nt16mr3598748obb.31.1382796644694; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 07:10:44 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.103.1 with SMTP id fs1ls913749igb.23.canary; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 07:10:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.252.68 with SMTP id zq4mr2063576pbc.154.1382796644430; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 07:10:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id rr7si7141715pbc.165.2013.10.26.07.10.44 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 07:10:44 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1BFA11E814D; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 07:10:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B17811E82A7 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 07:10:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2vCJcNK1-R0c for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 07:10:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37EBD11E814D for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 07:10:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9QEATGX001891; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 16:10:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p54892A8D.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.42.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1E714C41; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 16:10:28 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00.txt) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7BA90@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 16:10:26 +0200 Message-Id: <58354929-0CB4-45F2-BA6B-759DE26180BB@tzi.org> References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <138388CE-99F3-4F14-A17B-2D8CB2D55EFA@steffann.nl> <015A331F-8894-4A43-B3E8-E77DE7312595@tzi.org> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7BA90@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> To: "Fred Baker (fred)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816) Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org 6man-wg" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: cabo@tzi.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDBKXOOA7UDRBZE2V6JQKGQE6IZYAZY@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBDBKXOOA7UDRBZE2V6JQKGQE6IZYAZY@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-UID: 96 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 957 On 26 Oct 2013, at 13:24, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >> PS.: Besides, a 64-bit IID is the minimum size where the birthday parado= x is unlikely to bite you. > = > Given that, in the EUI-64 as we use it, As you use it. (In 6LoWPAN, we don=92t have 16 constant bits. But we do ha= ve OUIs.) But I wasn=92t talking about EUI-nn at all; these are supposed (I know) to = be managed so there aren=92t any collisions. I was talking about using the= IID in roles such as CGA, where it is really nice to have enough bits, and= a small probability of collision. 64 bits (a couple of which are often ta= ken for other fluff like CGA=92s Sec) is just barely enough. Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBDW4XN6F3MIRBJGMWSJQKGQE54N4NMQ@cs.luc.edu Sun Oct 27 09:41:41 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-oa0-f70.google.com (mail-oa0-f70.google.com [209.85.219.70]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0145C17C71 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:41:40 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-oa0-f70.google.com with SMTP id j10sf10069759oah.9 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:41:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=XEvoyTpLqu6F42H8tPzgdxmKD6BNb8Rr/4UdSGLdrGY=; b=LoszU3tOGph1N0czOPqK/a5R03+BfGmzQbbjRW17H8A0kjQK2eLCemA8KwH+eOCiyi tvaxqDm9tpOJGgRz49+UA/laqwS01ctXnY/AFKLqLG1qite22y9KD8y0srYs12ckKX8m wQTeeBHYppeMT7yNxphPCDECU7BIEY4ajyoLkLev/hAw1wfd6AMCudbaCBdJdAuyp6F3 zW6ZAmSFV9+D4Pr84qJT2GW01d5Vx5M5xs4ZRhLKes6Caugx9qaluP/5kDoAw3QInm6E 0B0NMrYZPdTE7Hjf8ywHefFDLK0rTMZOVCZeeykdGMDwANqijWCWNdd/+CAPDgJ2/ej6 eDUg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm6G+7gYUPCdQtVdFa95ivBQeFJs4dnxCPprg5+D4fqZzmzd9S8ncOSNbbPjHGpT25SJsyy X-Received: by 10.182.88.200 with SMTP id bi8mr534354obb.43.1382884900452; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:41:40 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.49.51.40 with SMTP id h8ls1854588qeo.28.gmail; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:41:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.236.102.234 with SMTP id d70mr11728095yhg.3.1382884900318; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:41:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gg0-f200.google.com (mail-gg0-f200.google.com [209.85.161.200]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s1si6909362yhb.123.2013.10.27.07.41.39 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:41:39 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDW4XN6F3MIRBI6MWSJQKGQEQKUSIKA@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-gg0-f200.google.com with SMTP id n5sf7541914ggj.3 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:41:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.58.204.2 with SMTP id ku2mr336542vec.39.1382884899601; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:41:39 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.92.69 with SMTP id ck5ls1246731igb.20.canary; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:41:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.159.132 with SMTP id xc4mr20844171pab.27.1382884899366; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:41:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id xb5si10501669pab.316.2013.10.27.07.41.38 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:41:39 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7188811E81D5; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:41:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE52611E8260 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:41:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LMGB2eMWfVjX for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:41:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:d10:2000:e::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C56B11E8192 for <6man@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:41:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [70.151.3.10] (helo=[192.168.118.120]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1VaRX2-00046Q-3K; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 15:41:32 +0100 Message-ID: <526D1E53.5090608@gont.com.ar> Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 10:08:19 -0400 From: Fernando Gont User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Fred Baker (fred)" , Scott Brim Subject: Re: Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00.txt) References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7A268@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526A204D.8080209@gont.com.ar> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7BABF@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7BC27@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7BC27@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: fernando@gont.com.ar X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDW4XN6F3MIRBI6MWSJQKGQEQKUSIKA@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBDW4XN6F3MIRBI6MWSJQKGQEQKUSIKA@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 97 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 1512 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Fred, On 10/26/2013 10:07 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > >> It seems reasonable to me to document a recommendation, for the >> future, even if it will take 15 years for the not-best-practice >> to fade. Therefore it seems reasonable to me to put in a >> SHOULD, along with all of the reasons discussed here why the >> installed base doesn't have to at this time. > > Which is the argument for saying "should 4861 or > stable-privacy-addresses". Not sure I follow: stable-privacy-addresses is expected to be used along RFC4862.. Am I missing something? Thanks, - -- Fernando Gont e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSbR5IAAoJEJbuqe/Qdv/x0hsH/07hrBJsrS4TMnjD9zkE4uF/ 7Z3iPuZdS/7nY5QIIHy1eyeDyp0+CwK6rls5PVgfZK8sgNOlUsBdo8DzeD8NBCFc eKr+AzljqbKzIhZuHEKbeWGIEEhq5x5WA2dIdXJkhi9b7RodUpPk7aScILlKypoZ FgZ0XLSxz5eA0I6vVP+Z7qI5sjyameHQrpI4f/VuTEcCCyAoG3iiu17s6IgBGFDZ LRgpRvDoWt1rX34X51J8ozGL9yi+b7W16/mz4o/ycLtY1qjELvP9OHFTVwf1iI4t dMBPrk52WnuRkXmJEus6KpBzAnSrA17+2szj6mFAkKJq/QC8NySFCDXtfrpiAcc= =+uM5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBZPPWSJQKGQED6BPMMI@cs.luc.edu Sun Oct 27 10:57:26 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-ob0-f198.google.com (mail-ob0-f198.google.com [209.85.214.198]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0ED8218EBC for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 10:57:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-ob0-f198.google.com with SMTP id wp18sf10300145obc.1 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:57:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=SnahrmJm5wa5L0BDioMCg3+U0tN1qLyfbQi94+nKJ5U=; b=ROydrrDAZ5koQuqJFx2xmbcf1cBKevdnMWtaDuvkylA/z8YzeGTcaqFEDfqrjHkoIo 0kc5F/SpfI3JNwefBlHJLkAwFhVMetmDNrbm8cfL11nnGBxB8QhLFHqqOk2P8SPdujeM iSkDOWtLe5LblshRVHN6TQC8lhYZoVlDIx5aha7Hq+TaS12nadrCe1RA984ZWOM3WlOK g35niUVXjtc8sL1VNaun1M9IRg2Ey+mbvVsvkGNclCpi56v1IujJW7Pf5PQSfTHUUVWj BZbQVZP++THpnzb6C1oIUsZKNcdZ7O1eADbq9YlTiQgLvYjuLEO1I0oCZ/VOnVuo+8AH 3B1w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlebjmKQzJ1Sa0N7+fXpgXCKx2zjYDpv+xTq1hzKi86vOBn+N+7H14hUl6ZnaYaevJF0w1P X-Received: by 10.182.108.136 with SMTP id hk8mr5412005obb.11.1382889445483; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:57:25 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.11.75 with SMTP id o11ls1254542igb.38.gmail; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:57:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.159.234 with SMTP id xf10mr1784846pab.139.1382889445219; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:57:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f72.google.com (mail-pb0-f72.google.com [209.85.160.72]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z1si9668040pbw.309.2013.10.27.08.57.25 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:57:25 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBZHPWSJQKGQE7GXKOEY@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-pb0-f72.google.com with SMTP id jt11sf10214265pbb.3 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:57:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.252.170 with SMTP id zt10mr7006452pac.34.1382889444810; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:57:24 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.102.5 with SMTP id fk5ls1265788igb.15.canary; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:57:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.179.98 with SMTP id df2mr16947084pbc.38.1382889444522; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:57:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id ad7si9684349pbd.238.2013.10.27.08.57.24 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:57:24 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10D9111E828E; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:57:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3F3821E80D5 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:57:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zajgfiCeC5CK for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:57:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sobre.alvarezp.com (sobre.alvarezp.com [173.230.155.94]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CEE111E828F for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:56:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.208] (189.220.45.207.cable.dyn.cableonline.com.mx [189.220.45.207]) by sobre.alvarezp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 21CD3613D; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 11:56:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <526D37DB.3020105@alvarezp.ods.org> Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:57:15 -0700 From: Octavio Alvarez User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130821 Icedove/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Carsten Bormann Subject: Re: Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00.txt) References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <138388CE-99F3-4F14-A17B-2D8CB2D55EFA@steffann.nl> <015A331F-8894-4A43-B3E8-E77DE7312595@tzi.org> In-Reply-To: <015A331F-8894-4A43-B3E8-E77DE7312595@tzi.org> Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org 6man-wg" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: alvarezp@alvarezp.ods.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBZHPWSJQKGQE7GXKOEY@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBCAN7MF2ZMORBZHPWSJQKGQE7GXKOEY@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-UID: 98 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 708 On 10/26/2013 02:40 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > On 25 Oct 2013, at 19:09, Sander Steffann wrote: > = >> make the specs a bit more flexible > = > Flexibility is overrated. > = > If you make it easier for a site to live with a /64 by making it easier t= o split that into /80 networks, the next thing you=92ll notice that sites s= tart to be allocated /80s. ... and proposals to allow up to /64s in the global routing table. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBDE2VF755AJBBQUHW2JQKGQEYPHOVUY@cs.luc.edu Sun Oct 27 16:21:07 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-pa0-f71.google.com (mail-pa0-f71.google.com [209.85.220.71]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 223F918EBF for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 16:21:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-pa0-f71.google.com with SMTP id fa1sf7884231pad.10 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:21:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:from:to:subject:thread-topic :thread-index:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:mime-version:cc:precedence:list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe :content-type:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results; bh=fpSXCcreGoznLEnSGzG15liR/ZK0Uwqg2AdkBff98nY=; b=KLQRk4KO1xvWBze7JMfOYsYr9VTqn4cbchWzhocd8MCtd61rH6G8p5j3golEfbqaaF yXUEloUL5DQcSlQTItUQmnaL03UTJTNVNZqbfTw8RDgskBdBWFssqMlFjvUnJGULRQGY hFHAGBh1YyYna0KXghDphkUy/vO/Odj3trF/idSqYNhd7f0CQ8Mv1gkM+JHUV0AUGXLD kLzTjEtVsiBv8zJV5HXr00bWZeuCBZXdy9EDJ5HKY3HSpZMaxY2k5QxVTKNKcWkDDJFh WQgszxfPxV1nUvAjNaCzW7CDPhueXq+ueZjjAjwPPnbBI8+gHrhXta5vHg9zxcBrZ9Pk b6wg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnlA3mVEEJfKnbV0/6RZOcAHdTlHPx8N+J40TfRO2pG0pKe03eL0DLt2TYyFEeWWGC1bF2+ X-Received: by 10.66.252.170 with SMTP id zt10mr7410808pac.34.1382908866306; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:21:06 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.182.205.163 with SMTP id lh3ls489567obc.84.gmail; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:21:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.60.45.227 with SMTP id q3mr6863454oem.10.1382908866150; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:21:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-f72.google.com (mail-oa0-f72.google.com [209.85.219.72]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u3si7402634oev.107.2013.10.27.14.21.05 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:21:05 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDE2VF755AJBBQMHW2JQKGQENR3VXJA@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-oa0-f72.google.com with SMTP id m17sf11029063oag.11 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:21:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.43.14.4 with SMTP id po4mr6889777icb.18.1382908865681; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:21:05 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.32.68 with SMTP id g4ls1380383igi.5.canary; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:21:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.180.200 with SMTP id dq8mr22421288pac.104.1382908865422; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:21:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id ei3si10108560pbc.350.2013.10.27.14.21.05 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:21:05 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F223A11E810C; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:21:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A93CD11E8156 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:21:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NaZQaZN6sSqW for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:20:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D10C11E810C for <6man@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:20:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Files: signature.asc : 195 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgMFAIGDbVKtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABZgwc4VL5egRwWdIIlAQEBAwF3AgULAgEIGAoZCzIlAgQOBQgGh3MGuAyOHIEIMQeDH4ENA5AtgTCHXJBYgWiBPoFxOQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,581,1378857600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="277353097" Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Oct 2013 21:20:58 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com [173.36.12.79]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r9RLKvt7019522 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sun, 27 Oct 2013 21:20:57 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.23]) by xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com ([173.36.12.79]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 16:20:57 -0500 From: "Fred Baker (fred)" To: Fernando Gont Subject: Re: Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00.txt) Thread-Topic: Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00.txt) Thread-Index: AQHO0yKkkOnsvbpp00GRW3tGlxVjfJoJYmSA Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 21:20:56 +0000 Message-ID: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7DCB5@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7A268@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526A204D.8080209@gont.com.ar> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7BABF@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7BC27@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <526D1E53.5090608@gont.com.ar> In-Reply-To: <526D1E53.5090608@gont.com.ar> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.61.200.22] MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5910085401729286362==" Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: fred@cisco.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDE2VF755AJBBQMHW2JQKGQENR3VXJA@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBDE2VF755AJBBQMHW2JQKGQENR3VXJA@math.luc.edu X-UID: 99 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 2334 --===============5910085401729286362== Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DC90F6C6-840F-43CC-ADBA-4F1A0FA5297B"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 --Apple-Mail=_DC90F6C6-840F-43CC-ADBA-4F1A0FA5297B Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 On Oct 27, 2013, at 3:08 PM, Fernando Gont wrote: > Signed PGP part > Hi, Fred, > > On 10/26/2013 10:07 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > > > >> It seems reasonable to me to document a recommendation, for the > >> future, even if it will take 15 years for the not-best-practice > >> to fade. Therefore it seems reasonable to me to put in a > >> SHOULD, along with all of the reasons discussed here why the > >> installed base doesn't have to at this time. > > > > Which is the argument for saying "should 4861 or > > stable-privacy-addresses". > > Not sure I follow: stable-privacy-addresses is expected to be used > along RFC4862.. Sorry, yes. Off-by-one error. > Am I missing something? > > Thanks, > -- > Fernando Gont > e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@si6networks.com > PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ 8 issues in virtual infrastructure http://dcrocker.net/#fallacies --Apple-Mail=_DC90F6C6-840F-43CC-ADBA-4F1A0FA5297B Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iD8DBQFSbYO3bjEdbHIsm0MRAmLwAKDJxVhOPVTz5Pq0Xj9J3FchMVm7bgCgjbhD Qm+/qrcnuNjqPThF+zT+1bg= =qAXj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_DC90F6C6-840F-43CC-ADBA-4F1A0FA5297B-- --===============5910085401729286362== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- --===============5910085401729286362==-- From pld+bncBCLL7HHY7EJBBC6QXOJQKGQE7E4G57Y@cs.luc.edu Mon Oct 28 17:41:16 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-pd0-f198.google.com (mail-pd0-f198.google.com [209.85.192.198]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7112517DC9 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 17:41:16 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-pd0-f198.google.com with SMTP id v10sf13553230pde.9 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:41:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:message-id:references:to:cc:precedence:list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe :content-type:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results; bh=dxqtG0/DmWCkJgSc+yl+wrcTFQQUnrY8cc0hiUGvCiw=; b=WvS+dXsmwEWbyqbTHEFSrPf20ToQ5yewjUEYKQvpUKB5tbCJKBNBYEhl+C7ZrEAcZ/ 8c12XOyJ0VQlrLlC/VcSNmjHAo+VRAwnfv7F3paHTjcSbV8dIQ03T6oqMh+bhMkl5LZX 3xSfnjvftIFrVmxBr36wVTnpTKwCtR+8RTTF+F1+A12b9cYUUqMNktduuZQT4isSqeBQ hE1VYKHEzdGRrYkue0VcYZovuiHRHzcJUn1+D3vv/AzeC0HBIejWy0FfJuMP7NBr4zRw SpWWtSuIrmCX8tDWfe8xVypfV1YKgTM6BalvqUrRFja5W+UGjHgGGWOrQTEuPm7rgXjT menA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkKD9rEBttMFVVJQPR02mWGF7pCcMxyJwiqncsFLvM4gzw5aZVk866IwzOvWzrYWuGwx0MS X-Received: by 10.66.146.136 with SMTP id tc8mr3211813pab.43.1383000075846; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:41:15 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.176.193 with SMTP id ck1ls1954630igc.22.gmail; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:41:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.170.225 with SMTP id ap1mr18516525pbc.117.1383000075522; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:41:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f70.google.com (mail-pb0-f70.google.com [209.85.160.70]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f10si14149565pac.220.2013.10.28.15.41.15 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:41:15 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCLL7HHY7EJBBCWQXOJQKGQERMWW36Q@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-pb0-f70.google.com with SMTP id rp8sf13186009pbb.9 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:41:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.248.193 with SMTP id yo1mr9675560pac.6.1383000074781; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:41:14 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.57.41 with SMTP id f9ls1956613igq.28.canary; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:41:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.145.4 with SMTP id sq4mr3929221pab.178.1383000074508; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:41:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id mj9si14183398pab.45.2013.10.28.15.41.14 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:41:14 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FDCC21F9E26; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:41:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D14B11E81B5 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:40:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UAkPDy7Vm5vd for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:40:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.maclaboratory.net (mail.maclaboratory.net [209.190.215.232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0112B21F9E01 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:40:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Footer: Y2R0Lm9yZw== Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by mail.maclaboratory.net (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher AES128-SHA (128 bits)); Mon, 28 Oct 2013 18:40:01 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) Subject: Re: Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00.txt) From: Alissa Cooper In-Reply-To: <001101ced0e5$fc380120$f4a80360$@rozanak.com> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:39:59 -0700 Message-Id: <435088E6-5DB8-42F4-8A92-1DE8F40009DD@cdt.org> References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <001101ced0e5$fc380120$f4a80360$@rozanak.com> To: Hosnieh Rafiee X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Cc: ipv6@ietf.org, 'Fernando Gont' X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5985421539209051404==" Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: acooper@cdt.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBCLL7HHY7EJBBCWQXOJQKGQERMWW36Q@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBCLL7HHY7EJBBCWQXOJQKGQERMWW36Q@math.luc.edu X-UID: 100 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 8356 --===============5985421539209051404== Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4A2F9B0F-650F-4B80-81BD-21D3A6F2EF5F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 --Apple-Mail=_4A2F9B0F-650F-4B80-81BD-21D3A6F2EF5F Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi Hosnieh, Assuming this is the relevant text from your draft, I will try to give = my interpretation of it and how it differs from the recommendations in = draft-gont: "Step 3 in Section 3.3 of RFC 4941MUST be ignored. When a node uses the mechanism explained in this document to generate an IID, it MUST not use any other IID generation approaches that are based on MAC addresses (RFC 4862) for either temporary or non temporary IID generation. The node MIGHT use the algorithm explained in [StableAddresses] for the generation of a public address that does not make use of EUI-64 or the MAC address for public (global) addresses." 1. The implication of the first sentence is that a node that creates a = public address as described in 4862 MUST NOT create a temporary address = as specified in 4941. 2. There is no recommendation as to whether or when to use the mechanism = you specify in ra-privacy, but the second sentence says that when a node = uses that mechanism, it MUST NOT (assuming you meant for the "not" to = have 2119 meaning) use any IID-generation mechanism based on a MAC = address. 3. The third sentence is editorial because MIGHT is not a 2119 keyword. The combination of the three statements above is rather different from = the recommendations made in = draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses. In draft-gont, we say: "Nodes MUST NOT employ IPv6 address generation schemes that embed the underlying hardware address in the Interface Identifier. Namely, nodes MUST NOT generate Interface Identifiers with the schemes specified in [RFC2464], [RFC2467], and [RFC2470]. Nodes SHOULD implement and employ [I-D.ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses] as the default scheme for generating stable IPv6 addresses with SLAAC." Thus we do not speak to temporary addresses, we deprecate the use of = hardware identifiers in IIDs, and we recommend the use of the mechanism = of stable-privacy-addresses when a stable address is needed. Of course = there has been some discussion about whether these normative = recommendations are the right ones and whether making them is worthwhile = and that discussion should continue, but in any event the two drafts' = recommendations appear to be rather different. I am also bought in to the idea that if some recommendation is to be = made about use of hardware identifiers in IIDs, it should be in a simple = stand-alone draft. Hope this helps, Alissa On Oct 24, 2013, at 11:22 AM, Hosnieh Rafiee wrote: > Hi, >=20 > I guess you also included the section regarding ra-privacy draft in = this > draft. Are you going to merge my draft with yours?=20 >=20 > @Alissia: Did I missed something? I guess we discussed to keep this in = my > draft (the email that Ole and others were also included) >=20 > I am not totally disagree with deprecating the use of EUI-64 but I = would > like to clarify the status of my draft that was active for some = months. > Thanks, >=20 > -----------smile---------- > Hosnieh > . success is a journey, not a destination.. > You cannot change your destination overnight, but you can change your > direction ... Focus on the journey >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of > Fernando Gont > Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 7:50 PM > To: 6man@ietf.org > Cc: draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses@tools.ietf.org > Subject: Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses (Fwd: New Version > Notification for = draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00.txt) >=20 > Folks, >=20 > We have posted a new I-D entitled "Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 = Addresses" > = (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based= -a > ddresses-00.txt). >=20 > It's a spin-off of the work we've been doing on IPv6 addressing > secuity/privacy considerations > (draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-address-generation-privacy and > draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses), and the idea had already = been > discussed among several folks mstly off-list and at IETF meeting = corridors. >=20 > Any comments will be appreciated. >=20 > Thanks! >=20 > Best regards, > Fernando >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: New Version Notification for > draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00.txt > Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 15:43:46 -0700 > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org > To: Fernando Gont , Will Liu > , Alissa Cooper , Dave Thaler > >=20 >=20 > A new version of I-D, = draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00.txt > has been successfully submitted by Fernando Gont and posted to the = IETF > repository. >=20 > Filename: draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses > Revision: 00 > Title: Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses > Creation date: 2013-10-22 > Group: Individual Submission > Number of pages: 6 > URL: > = http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-= ad > dresses-00.txt > Status: > = http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addr= es > ses > Htmlized: > = http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses= -0 > 0 >=20 >=20 > Abstract: > Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) for IPv6 typically > results in hosts configuring one or more stable addresses composed = of > a network prefix advertised by a local router, and an Interface > Identifier that typically embeds a hardware address (e.g., an IEEE > LAN MAC address). The security and privacy implications of = embedding > hardware addresses in the Interface Identifier have been known and > understood for some time now, and some popular IPv6 implementations > have already deviated from such scheme to mitigate these issues. > This document deprecates the use of hardware addresses in IPv6 > Interface Identifiers, and recommends the use of an alternative > scheme ([I-D.ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses]) for the generation > of IPv6 stable addresses. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of = submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >=20 > The IETF Secretariat >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > -- > Fernando Gont > e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: = 7809 > 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 >=20 >=20 >=20 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail=_4A2F9B0F-650F-4B80-81BD-21D3A6F2EF5F Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSbue/AAoJEIXyHQftqgBQs+sIAJv4+sGjIjl27ICRniSFdZpB b3UVrZC0AtmIrUnGwyZTqB95IGw3Og9Vlh93dgeeRkKhlMScB+0CqVtQHbklW5/c TjLGnli3E/SbZunrF3CmCeP5l3UZToFr6/pxAGXvAEbGPAcDcpYxTgpf932rcVkx 0f7eoqhCfWh0rth3w6JPOnwXO1ZV6RU3QY6PZOpOtSno+Y0pltCOe7YtTF6BX3mP SqFmr6+nqQdj0ijuFCQoHeZfOq4/uv0+euPdtvkgoDX9+KWEpS17RtDsMLEjhxSK 1s8MIo7lfLxrunRq3a3Xi/SObz8SHIeoZlFj418xJOghIcQTCQexuwVJ50aSjJ8= =gTE5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_4A2F9B0F-650F-4B80-81BD-21D3A6F2EF5F-- --===============5985421539209051404== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- --===============5985421539209051404==-- From pld+bncBDW4XN6F3MIRBWGYXOJQKGQE23DBDXQ@cs.luc.edu Mon Oct 28 17:59:37 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-qc0-f197.google.com (mail-qc0-f197.google.com [209.85.216.197]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F9F118EBC for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 17:59:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-qc0-f197.google.com with SMTP id x19sf18672649qcw.8 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:59:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=xJvlEx9Y/bVeuNCkhwd0hiB9XdSoXV41rUmqrYzWW98=; b=HoH7SKpA5MWVN2GYvQORf1agzic+LLz46pim4ISUGcWLKPN2WnbgXZmvy98Hde4Xw8 DslCcknOlsx0NRgGCNf2RwY4b8HIlKm/3HEnZEv2e6Ym9HRG4XyvJwDri4SoVZ+MLBjK jvaiC4OddHcZAj58GnoCFZ4fT2IpgJXtReXjQ0CTyyK+ePe8j4vKr0ibSCHb8x+/TOEu gkEH/Q/mg7K/fJBqEWEYZR+vRaATP/XeMxeTlyZmCRwncOh1xkg+Lkyiej5xWGZzYmIv Jt/d2WBPgfptBhi/Jew+84ABcv/4f4XokNLIewAB+bbQoJPN1VGuC3ehnOjBYrWt+Auz CF5Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnhUg7VhX4q0xA9FSwJtuL1fxMOm6At4RBMTr6ColU++AKUu+g4gGt8N92O6n2S8wVJkcfX X-Received: by 10.58.136.6 with SMTP id pw6mr9860696veb.32.1383001176318; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:59:36 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.182.243.161 with SMTP id wz1ls1195974obc.13.gmail; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:59:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.60.155.166 with SMTP id vx6mr17115726oeb.28.1383001176144; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:59:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-f72.google.com (mail-oa0-f72.google.com [209.85.219.72]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id oy3si10450922obb.33.2013.10.28.15.59.35 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:59:35 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDW4XN6F3MIRBV6YXOJQKGQEOWBGBHY@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-oa0-f72.google.com with SMTP id m17sf15761739oag.7 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:59:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.43.14.4 with SMTP id po4mr8965632icb.18.1383001175786; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:59:35 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.40.36 with SMTP id u4ls1909189igk.2.gmail; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:59:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.218.166 with SMTP id ph6mr28202105pac.28.1383001175577; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:59:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id y7si11109079pbi.83.2013.10.28.15.59.35 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:59:35 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFA9011E80E7; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:59:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B19F121E80B7 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:59:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GLE2o447Xee5 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:59:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:d10:2000:e::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 434AE11E8152 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:59:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [2001:13c7:7003:89:50c6:8049:8463:836e] by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1Vavlz-00013a-N1; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 23:58:59 +0100 Message-ID: <526EEC30.6010709@gont.com.ar> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 18:58:56 -0400 From: Fernando Gont User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hosnieh Rafiee , 'Fernando Gont' , Alissa Cooper Subject: Re: Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00.txt) References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <001101ced0e5$fc380120$f4a80360$@rozanak.com> In-Reply-To: <001101ced0e5$fc380120$f4a80360$@rozanak.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Cc: ipv6@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: fernando@gont.com.ar X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDW4XN6F3MIRBV6YXOJQKGQEOWBGBHY@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBDW4XN6F3MIRBV6YXOJQKGQEOWBGBHY@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 101 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 3315 Hosnieh, On 10/24/2013 02:22 PM, Hosnieh Rafiee wrote: > > I guess you also included the section regarding ra-privacy draft in this > draft. Are you going to merge my draft with yours? To be quite honest, I'm not sure what you mean. But before juping to the specifics of this I-D we've published, let me clarify some bits about this topic: 1) I authored draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses in 2011. At the time, that I-D was meant to deprecate Modified EUI-64 IIDs. During the process of wg adoption, it was seen as a better approach to have this I-D just propose the algorithm, rather than have it deprecate EUI-64... hence the deprecation was eventually removed. 2) In a similar way, draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses used to contain a threat assessment -- notably improved in response to Alissa's feedback (during WGLC or IETF LC, IIRC). Eventually, this threat assessment was removed (since, among other things, it was a whole topic by itself). "2)" later resulted in a stand-alone document... and, more recently, so did "1)". draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00.txt borrows text from stable-privacy and from Alissa's I-D -- that's how Will and me produced the initial -00 version, which was later discussed and edited with the other co-authors before publication. Now, if asked about the specifics (and having just taken a look at your document), -- and assuming this is the part you're referring to -- your document says: > Step 3 in Section 3.3 of RFC 4941 MUST be ignored. When a node uses > the mechanism explained in this document to generate an IID, it MUST > not use any other IID generation approaches that are based on MAC > addresses ( RFC 4862) for either temporary or non temporary IID > generation. This text does not deprecate Modified EUI-64. It rather provides an optional alternative to generating IIDs. Besides, Section 3 of (dated December *2011*) contains this text: > IPv6 implementations conforming to this specification MUST generate > interface identifiers with the algorithm specified in this section. > The aforementioned algorithm MUST be employed for generating the > interface identifiers for all the IPv6 addresses configured with > SLAAC for a given interface, including IPv6 link-local addresses. .. which pretty much reads like the text in your I-D ("MUST NOT use EUI-64 *when this algorithm is employed*")... So I'm rather curious about your suggestion of "plagiarism" on our side, I should say. > The node MIGHT use the algorithm explained in > [StableAddresses] for the generation of a public address that does > not make use of EUI-64 or the MAC address for public (global) > addresses. FWIW, our document recommends draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses, rather than listing it as one possible option. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBDW4XN6F3MIRBRWEX6JQKGQENDSZANQ@cs.luc.edu Tue Oct 29 11:28:54 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-ie0-f199.google.com (mail-ie0-f199.google.com [209.85.223.199]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C512A17DC9 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 11:28:54 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f199.google.com with SMTP id qd12sf235733ieb.6 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:28:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cc:precedence :list-id:list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help :list-subscribe:sender:errors-to:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=/pL2W5N2NFVQZFcJr0TOUty1OHKuaRpMCWgCtWAjgOo=; b=jy3oyQuujeK98Rey+LBcPTYiV/nMVtEKLa4p+fY62lFzengOUnb0ST/87IQ5tiwxDU NLDuTtjX0kxLo6Jk5H5uSWg416gHhFORorIVotuvAqRfMYK6ZGIbPo3ETIbjH0zCIzT+ nwFQ0drZxOXWxerYzJ7n4I3/V2er77Ru24UlhC5YZqRp92N+sMSnsBo6thrOhWYfNZlJ 2HghFLAJArFIYK1qPUMZCvTXqmx/Nrlk4/Mf2pYRSLkidFw2DfknT8TWetxNZdWkiPqo gP4wQFvX9SbyEhyRFEJELB6XC74Ac1MbPb6xTbXz2imHHKXHo5ihw86CcU3Kq2LsNPTu kp3Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlpzGd8ygubcOVMY7W46iqregKEr0LhVOM+apAJngAgHU1iqSJdOsfmhV0Xu4Q3qNjNGRvX X-Received: by 10.43.151.16 with SMTP id kq16mr165173icc.22.1383064134096; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:28:54 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.49.48.66 with SMTP id j2ls132170qen.90.gmail; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:28:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.224.38.2 with SMTP id z2mr1717919qad.121.1383064133954; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:28:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-f70.google.com (mail-qa0-f70.google.com [209.85.216.70]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e20si12133592qey.60.2013.10.29.09.28.52 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:28:52 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDW4XN6F3MIRBRGEX6JQKGQEWQTBTUA@math.luc.edu) client-ip=12.22.58.30; Received: by mail-qa0-f70.google.com with SMTP id i13sf467010qae.1 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:28:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.58.94.162 with SMTP id dd2mr175883veb.21.1383064132294; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:28:52 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.41.100 with SMTP id e4ls2397951igl.9.canary; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:28:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.136.227 with SMTP id qd3mr1157318pab.113.1383064132061; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:28:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id gn4si15317182pbc.291.2013.10.29.09.28.51 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:28:51 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1852011E8131; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:28:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C454111E8228 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:28:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1MLGkhsgTLqD for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:28:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:d10:2000:e::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE0A411E8131 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:28:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [190.112.245.66] (helo=[172.17.150.9]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1VbC9f-00022w-L1; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 17:28:31 +0100 Message-ID: <526FE22C.6090502@gont.com.ar> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:28:28 -0400 From: Fernando Gont User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hosnieh , Alissa Cooper Subject: Re: Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00.txt) References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <001101ced0e5$fc380120$f4a80360$@rozanak.com> <526EEC30.6010709@gont.com.ar> <373361003.202110.1383033220363.open-xchange@email.1and1.com> In-Reply-To: <373361003.202110.1383033220363.open-xchange@email.1and1.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Cc: ipv6@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: fernando@gont.com.ar X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.22.58.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDW4XN6F3MIRBRGEX6JQKGQEWQTBTUA@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBDW4XN6F3MIRBRGEX6JQKGQEWQTBTUA@math.luc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UID: 102 Status: RO X-Keywords: Content-Length: 3316 On 10/29/2013 03:53 AM, Hosnieh wrote: > >> So I'm rather curious about your suggestion of "plagiarism" on our side, >> I should say. > > That section of the draft in ra-privacy also says not to use EUI-64 as > both temporary and public addresses. This section is not new and you can > find it in early versions of ra-privacy as well because it was one of > the problem of RFC 4941. Please re-read my earlier response: I authored an I-D that said that in December 2011. > Your draft expands this section and make it > more general to deprecate EUI-64. It's not "more general". There's a difference between a proposal that provides an option, and a document that is meant to replace one thing with another. draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses was originally meant to replace Modified EUI-64. Then that document was change such that the mechanism was specified as an option, without replacing the existing algorithms. Your I-D ra-privacy means to do something similar to what stable-privacy is doing: provide an alternative algorithm for generating IIDs. draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00 does a different thing: it recommends to replace the existing recommended algorithm (Modifed EUI-64) with another (stable-privacy). Suggesting that your document was plagiarized is, at best, inappropriate. > What I can remember during and after IETF 87, there was also offlist > discussion about this and I said, since this part is in this draft and > already explained, I suggest to keep it as it is and nobody said > otherwise. You were also includede in that discussion. 1) What your document says is different from what our says (please see my explanation above) 2) Your document is, IMO, mixing different and unrelated issues -- I don't think it could be progressed as such. 3) I don't understand how being listed in a recipient's list represents some sort of agrement -- but this is a side comment. And while digging into mail achives, it seems that your description of such mail exchange is misleading. > So, when you planned to have that section out of this draft and make it > more general, at least you could mention it and discuss about this or > refer to this draft. Once again: please see my explanation above. Namely: 1) Your document provides an optional way to represent IIDs (in this respect, stable-privacy has been doing this way before.. but the same applies to CGAs and others) 2) draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses did both options (firstly trying to replace Modified EUI-64, and later (as does the current version) simply providing an alternative algorithm to do so). draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses predates was published way before your I-D. P.S.: I would have preferred to explain this off-list. But since your post was on-list, and I was asked to clarify this issue, that's why ended up posting this an my previous note on-list. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBDQNHCXC7YNBBK7P4KKAKGQE6S5D6WI@cs.luc.edu Fri Nov 29 09:50:03 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-vb0-f72.google.com (mail-vb0-f72.google.com [209.85.212.72]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B65F91833D for ; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 09:50:03 -0600 (CST) Received: by mail-vb0-f72.google.com with SMTP id w5sf21824007vbf.11 for ; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 07:50:03 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:from:to:subject:thread-topic :thread-index:date:deferred-delivery:message-id:references :in-reply-to:accept-language:mime-version:cc:precedence:list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe :errors-to:sender:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:content-language:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=J6wcH12/6A4v04Cg9KEzrn2z2wQK2u4VN6jdKfHHZ7o=; b=MmuH+fsXA0ddhymyYVQwzv3qbyIfzlB1gu6qNCEdGyjatUxbEHd7NCMZGUVcXXSucT OTYwArUpUVdoVxK9CgBGZ0r8KpquL4tY031eeH5gA0KK6M8IZ1TWcKKQCBKVUiCRi4KM ioF+wyG9OfZR8pEXUskd3udfaVEawFBcKi1O6yaloCoeztqutWuc2w4YehGsEMNUR/+c GRk7fHhNLzg8+h0JeIgADtf/PAJWq85fMi5zU4hxbCyfpG0/q4AZA9MGYabE/CC++jg7 tSLx62RYlV2bt9dlenSZraTCZhnFqEdm1bcAp5R+Lt3tf5ZvzyB8yUMJC0L4S0WbsvXl RGWQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlOpGQxx2mNLyAMNgoAu6HK83JOR8zLSbPlC0ZeDjwXXcBm2E/GdbSBaN8fk+TmHnHhnSS0 X-Received: by 10.58.128.33 with SMTP id nl1mr18077600veb.28.1385740203257; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 07:50:03 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.182.232.133 with SMTP id to5ls1307029obc.8.gmail; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 07:50:03 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.182.97.138 with SMTP id ea10mr1527516obb.77.1385740203048; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 07:50:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ob0-f200.google.com (mail-ob0-f200.google.com [209.85.214.200]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id si5si36513732oeb.9.2013.11.29.07.50.02 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 29 Nov 2013 07:50:02 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 4.31.198.44 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDQNHCXC7YNBBKXP4KKAKGQEV53YNAA@math.luc.edu) client-ip=4.31.198.44; Received: by mail-ob0-f200.google.com with SMTP id wm4sf31669967obc.3 for ; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 07:50:02 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.50.66.238 with SMTP id i14mr2945447igt.4.1385740202755; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 07:50:02 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.119.1 with SMTP id kq1ls833749igb.3.canary; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 07:50:02 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.66.139.130 with SMTP id qy2mr53877196pab.73.1385740202480; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 07:50:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [4.31.198.44]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id yd9si40192352pab.31.2013.11.29.07.50.02 for ; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 07:50:02 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 4.31.198.44 as permitted sender) client-ip=4.31.198.44; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE5DB1ADFCD; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 07:50:02 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D5D41ADFCD for ; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 07:50:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.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 qPjplPUiJ6AG for ; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 07:49:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.142.95]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 129041AD7BF for <6man@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 07:49:59 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AggFAOq2mFKtJXG//2dsb2JhbABZgwc4U7hagSEWdIIlAQEBBAEBAWsLDAQCAQgRBAEBCx0HJwsUCQgCBAENBQiHeQ3AKxMEjlcxBwaDGoETA4kKoR2DKYIq X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,798,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="3162650" Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Nov 2013 15:49:57 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com [173.37.183.85]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rATFnvrQ021411 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 29 Nov 2013 15:49:57 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.30]) by xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com ([173.37.183.85]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 09:49:57 -0600 From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: Alexandru Petrescu , Fernando Gont Subject: RE: Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses Thread-Topic: Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses Thread-Index: AQHO7QtM4RvlsZjjZEea2dIKx3RZeZo8WgIQ Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 15:49:57 +0000 Deferred-Delivery: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 15:49:00 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7A268@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <52989DA7.1070301@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <52989DA7.1070301@gmail.com> Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.61.206.38] MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Sender: "ipv6" Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: pthubert@cisco.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 4.31.198.44 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDQNHCXC7YNBBKXP4KKAKGQEV53YNAA@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBDQNHCXC7YNBBKXP4KKAKGQEV53YNAA@math.luc.edu Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-UID: 103 Status: RO X-Keywords: NonJunk Content-Length: 1548 I attended .1 meetings in Dallas the week after Vancouver and the fashion w= as more around: - cannot bridge 64 bits address (but the reason is more for incompatible M= AC expectation in 15.4 like latency than for address translation reasons) - should go back to EUI 48 for everything (and the reason was that changing= all the mibs that have 48 bits in them is a nightmare) Cheers, Pascal > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu > Sent: vendredi 29 novembre 2013 14:59 > To: Fred Baker (fred); Fernando Gont > Cc: 6man@ietf.org; addresses@tools.ietf.org> > Subject: Re: Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses > = > sidenote about this intriguing bit... > = > Le 25/10/2013 07:16, Fred Baker (fred) a =E9crit : > [...] > > and note that the IEEE is now (I'm told) discussing 128 bit MAC > > Addresses. > = > Found in draft-ieee-rac-oui-restructuring-00 section 4.4.2 'EUI-128 addre= sses'. > = > Alex > = > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pld+bncBDE2VF755AJBBS7X5GKAKGQENK643NI@cs.luc.edu Sat Nov 30 17:59:08 2013 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ulam2.cs.luc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Original-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Delivered-To: pld@ulam2.cs.luc.edu Received: from mail-qa0-f69.google.com (mail-qa0-f69.google.com [209.85.216.69]) by ulam2.cs.luc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D842418FD4 for ; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 17:59:07 -0600 (CST) Received: by mail-qa0-f69.google.com with SMTP id ii20sf7550430qab.0 for ; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 15:59:07 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:from:to:subject:thread-topic :thread-index:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:mime-version:cc:precedence:list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe :content-type:errors-to:sender:mailing-list:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results; bh=H4tL5/q7Pgox9mqqOphN2jThsdRe9AvD0ubAwEMp73k=; b=daBTF0NWdQhqERJaOD2F90MA9PjxkiTC8fYElO36quQ6xDMxLXuoV+SFmwLoFH0IdM bf+cHaAGGoYA5GEksmy6OazXuCTM1DPeNf+dGbTpkxZza+AO4iHH7PLKlCt7hdIoywTp QKSAiDiiXO2E3o/nOUMyEFfeqrSQff+cDSlgZFbq5Cw+Y9gELrCURY4tXEhh6sQXO2Xk AU+Mi2m6NGOpm4BByPIAOHCNe6tq+WUOYomrd1TnLdeD1XbS3IeN5rYdxQZZk3oY96oq BnUQE2yTCgLcnZX29UDsgd5sCctm63oywJX5E2L1uPNQ7QeImP3Lk8Mp/IqTyRJOgYRb cTmw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnujMCBUWIVNMnO5SXaJ/LIu99gQT2S9ZqMnbYteD/sxoJMLx6YPSZJ2gkFOEBQz5njt4pK X-Received: by 10.236.20.114 with SMTP id o78mr25730451yho.8.1385855947266; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 15:59:07 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: pld@cs.luc.edu Received: by 10.182.240.193 with SMTP id wc1ls1483460obc.74.gmail; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 15:59:07 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.182.117.195 with SMTP id kg3mr48733062obb.17.1385855947097; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 15:59:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ob0-f197.google.com (mail-ob0-f197.google.com [209.85.214.197]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id rj3si2546156oeb.42.2013.11.30.15.59.06 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 30 Nov 2013 15:59:06 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 4.31.198.44 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDE2VF755AJBBSXX5GKAKGQEC7KTMMA@math.luc.edu) client-ip=4.31.198.44; Received: by mail-ob0-f197.google.com with SMTP id va2sf35842848obc.0 for ; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 15:59:06 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.50.85.109 with SMTP id g13mr5036639igz.1.1385855946828; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 15:59:06 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: pld@math.luc.edu Received: by 10.50.107.38 with SMTP id gz6ls1336489igb.2.canary; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 15:59:06 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.66.249.134 with SMTP id yu6mr59945943pac.37.1385855946607; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 15:59:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [4.31.198.44]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id n5si3439276pac.185.2013.11.30.15.59.06 for ; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 15:59:06 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ipv6-bounces@ietf.org designates 4.31.198.44 as permitted sender) client-ip=4.31.198.44; Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CFA51ADFAB; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 15:59:07 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 546631AE4BA for ; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 15:59:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.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 XfQadB1IjrbT for ; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 15:59:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F1081ADFAB for <6man@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 15:59:03 -0800 (PST) X-Files: signature.asc : 195 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag4FAMZ6mlKtJXHB/2dsb2JhbABZgwc4Rwy4W4EZFnSCJQEBAQMBAQEBagELBQcEAgEIEQQBASgHJwsUCQgCBA4FDodtBg2+WxMEjwgHBoMagRMDkDGBMYYykhODKYIq X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,804,1378857600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="288505320" Received: from rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com ([173.37.113.193]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Nov 2013 23:59:01 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com [173.36.12.89]) by rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rAUNx16R024535 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sat, 30 Nov 2013 23:59:01 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.118]) by xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com ([173.36.12.89]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 17:59:00 -0600 From: "Fred Baker (fred)" To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" Subject: Re: Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses Thread-Topic: Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses Thread-Index: AQHO7Qsx2wCF/kJsDkWvUrXC0nePDpo8v82AgAIa8oA= Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 23:58:59 +0000 Message-ID: <40EA8A8A-522B-4314-ADC6-DE719969A8AA@cisco.com> References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7A268@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <52989DA7.1070301@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.21.123.33] MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Alexandru Petrescu , "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, Fernando Gont , "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============9097919461328327385==" Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Sender: "ipv6" Mailing-list: list pld@cs.luc.edu; contact pld+owners@cs.luc.edu X-Google-Group-Id: 237060656188 X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: fred@cisco.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 4.31.198.44 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of pld+bncBDE2VF755AJBBSXX5GKAKGQEC7KTMMA@math.luc.edu) smtp.mail=pld+bncBDE2VF755AJBBSXX5GKAKGQEC7KTMMA@math.luc.edu X-UID: 104 Status: RO X-Keywords: NonJunk Content-Length: 3743 --===============9097919461328327385== Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_92F167B1-D32E-484E-97FC-4834D35A38FD"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 --Apple-Mail=_92F167B1-D32E-484E-97FC-4834D35A38FD Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 On Nov 29, 2013, at 7:49 AM, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" = wrote: > I attended .1 meetings in Dallas the week after Vancouver and the = fashion was more around: >=20 > - cannot bridge 64 bits address (but the reason is more for = incompatible MAC expectation in 15.4 like latency than for address = translation reasons) > - should go back to EUI 48 for everything (and the reason was that = changing all the mibs that have 48 bits in them is a nightmare) =46rom my perspective, I really don't care how many bits any given = technology uses. If they need a 92.5 bit address, they should use a 92.5 = bit address. On the other hand, if they don't need a given address size, = they should not concoct a reason to use it. The IETF should similarly = use address sizes and structures that work will across a variety of = lower layer technologies, and perform the unnatural act of tying itself = to one of them, or appearing to. The value of a virtual address is that = it maps to anything... > Cheers, >=20 > Pascal >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandru = Petrescu >> Sent: vendredi 29 novembre 2013 14:59 >> To: Fred Baker (fred); Fernando Gont >> Cc: 6man@ietf.org; > addresses@tools.ietf.org> >> Subject: Re: Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses >>=20 >> sidenote about this intriguing bit... >>=20 >> Le 25/10/2013 07:16, Fred Baker (fred) a =E9crit : >> [...] >>> and note that the IEEE is now (I'm told) discussing 128 bit MAC >>> Addresses. >>=20 >> Found in draft-ieee-rac-oui-restructuring-00 section 4.4.2 'EUI-128 = addresses'. >>=20 >> Alex >>=20 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >> ipv6@ietf.org >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- "We are learning to do a great many clever things...The next great task will be to learn not to do them." - G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936) --Apple-Mail=_92F167B1-D32E-484E-97FC-4834D35A38FD Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iD8DBQFSmnu/bjEdbHIsm0MRAvxbAKD3uks5KEBpm178iB0r9HyK5jnSFwCgrQeO 6twN4GNBHnpaK7gGaK9dRvc= =3/VY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_92F167B1-D32E-484E-97FC-4834D35A38FD-- --===============9097919461328327385== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- --===============9097919461328327385==--
 wrote:


On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Fred Baker (fred) <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
But "MAY" vs "SHOULD NOT"? If it can happen at all, then the vast majority of systems, that base the IID on a MAC address, have every reason to continue to do so.

It seems reasonable to me to document a recommendation, for the future, even if it will take 15 years for the not-best-practice to fade.  Therefore it seems reasonable to me to put in a SHOULD, along with all of the reasons discussed here why the installed base doesn't have to at this time.