Subject: RE: Draft on Globally Unique IPv6 Local Unicast Addresses

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 06:27:21 -0700

Bob,

I have read this draft, comments below.

It is clear that the intent was to remove ambiguity, which of course is
a good idea. However, I wonder if in this case the risk induced by the
cure is not worse than the disease. In the current state of the draft,
there is no way to guarantee that this will not become a wild PI mess.
There are two things that we can't enforce:

1. We can't enforce router vendors to code the default blackholes.
Before moving ahead with this I would like to hear clear signs from the
players in the field that they would support it.

2. We can't enforce operators to filter the prefix. I dropped filters on
my BGP feeds and from one of my peers (a well-known player) I get all
kinds of crud including /64 routes, /48 routes, /41 routes, name it I
get it.

The demand for PI is very strong. There are people that would support
it. The major concern I have with this draft is that your original
intent (remove ambiguity of private addresses) which is good could
easily be perverted into global random PI which is terrible.

Michel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 15:53:48 +0200

> players in the field that they would support it.

Why is this different from FEC0::/10?

> kinds of crud including /64 routes, /48 routes, /41 routes, name it I

I think there will be Darwinian effects here, as we saw during the
first years of CIDR. But yes, if someone pays enough, they will
get their /64 announced. That will happen whatever we write in RFCs.

> easily be perverted into global random PI which is terrible.

Can you propose a solution to ambiguous local addresses that doesn't
have this risk?

    Brian

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 17:23:49 +0300 (EEST)

> players in the field that they would support it.

IMO, any proposal which says "default blackholes" it at least dubious if 
not broken.

That lets the user to go into a safe dream that some good guy out there 
will actually have the software supporting such blacholes.

Which is why there should not be blackholes.  Such blackholes must be
configured manually, or *AT LEAST* enabled manually.

Access controls must be explicit, not implicit.

All other choices would seem to lead to broken assumptions at the host
implementor's side.

> easily be perverted into global random PI which is terrible.

Which may be why some form of PI may have to be defined, with strict 
criteria for application.  But assumption that if we have PI, everyone 
must have PI (and more so, routable PI), may be an unfortunate reality, 
but a reality we must change if we want to introduce PI.

But this is an issue for multi6.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 09:08:48 -0700

>But this is an issue for multi6.
Everybody want a free lunch in this story: routable PI.

There is no reason to think that those non-routable PI
will not be advertized in the DMZ if enough money
is put on the table.

    - Alain.

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 23:56:50 +0300 (EEST)

> will not be advertized in the DMZ if enough money

Which is why we should ensure that if you want to put money on the table, 
you have to bribe all the ISP's, not just your own :-).

Should be a rather de-facto useful preventer for something like this :-).