Subject: RE: site-local observations from the outside

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:14:23 -0700

Brian,

>> Michel Py wrote:
>> It's a matter of risk: If I use the
>> Hinden/Haberman draft as private addresses, and if it ends up
>> being perverted as PI, my entire network design goes to the
>> trash. If I hijack a random prefix for private addresses, the
>> risk of collisions although not null is a lot less.

> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I am puzzled by your last two sentences. Can you be more
> precise about why your design would be trashed

Because then the addresses used on the private network would be routable
PI, which is exactly what network designers don't want when they design
a private network with private addresses.

From another post:

> If by PI you mean *globally routeable* PI, I am not holding
> my breath, and I believe it would be a serious mistake to
> delay any decisions while waiting for PI.
> If you mean non-globally-routeable PI, Hinden/Haberman is a
> fine solution.

What you refuse to acknowledge is that there is a high probability that
the Hinden/Haberman draft will be misused as globally routable PI. As
so, it can't be used for private addresses. I'm not the only one that
says this.

Network administrators don't buy that addresses in the Hinden/Haberman
draft will remain non-routable because they will be the first jumping in
the train to make them routable in the first place.

> and why random hijacking is less risky than a
> pseudo-random generator?

It's not; it has everything to do with the purpose of the prefix, not
with   the way the address was picked. The risk of collision for an
address that does not get out of the site is a lot less (specifically, a
merge) than for an address that reaches the outside.

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: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:13:34 +0200

A considered reply to a couple of postings:

Under the subject RE: site-local observations from the outside
> a private network with private addresses.

I still don't understand the difference between using a Hinden/Haberman
address or a hijacked address as a routeable prefix. As we know, the
algorithm involves giving money to an ISP to announce the prefix. There's
no way we can stop that happening. It's going to happen whatever
the IETF writes down. I'm not happy about that, but I'm not happy
about global warming.

If an enterprise decides to switch off the filtering of "local" prefixes
in their border router, and pays their ISPs to announce them, that
part of the game is over.
> the Hinden/Haberman draft will be misused as globally routable PI. 

There's a 100% probability it will be used for inter-enterprise
routing (i.e. exceptions such as VPNs to normal routing).
There's probably a 100% probability that some enterprises will
pay ISPs to announce /48s into the DFZ (as mentioned above).
But I don't think that is a characteristic of the Hinden/Haberman
draft. It will happen whatever we define. The trick is to make
it an exception rather than the rule.

> As

No, you're not, but it doesn't follow. It can be used for private addresses 
by default. But there is no enforcement mechanism.

> the train to make them routable in the first place.

Yes. In fact that statement has to be true for any solution satisfying
the Hain/Templin "requirements." I think we have to deal with it.

> merge) than for an address that reaches the outside.

That's certainly true, but I think the risk is negligible anyway.

Under the subject RE: Geoff Huston's draft and the intended use of the hinden/templin addressspace, Michel Py wrote:

> Brian,
> 
> > Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > I kept reading, because if these things are created they *will*
> > certainly end up being used as end point identifiers.
> 
> Can you develop why? In the absolute I can find lots of reasons but I
> don't see why the identifier/locator solution would prefer using these
> vs. having its own prefix.

If I have an IP address for my machine that is
FC00:<IBM's random number>:1:1:<my 64 bit id>
why wouldn't I use that as a transport address in a multihomed session?
I can't see a downside. If I'm worried about privacy, I can use
RFC 3041 to generate the address.

> 
> I agree that they would be used for NAT though, because NAT does not
> need anything to be invented.

Indeed not. Whatever we do, NAT6 is lurking.

   Brian

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 

NEW ADDRESS <[email-masked]> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:33:58 -0700

>it an exception rather than the rule.
I agree with your premise, there is a 100% probability that some
of those PI /48 will be routed in the DFZ.
I disagree with your conclusion, the trick is to make sure
that _when_ this happens (and not if), it does not create chaos.

What I dislike most about the Hinden/Haberman draft is the
"anonymity" of the randomly generated prefixes. As they are
not registered anywhere, debugging will be more difficult.
Today, we have two major tools when we'd like to see
where an address is coming from:
- the routing system, with BGP annoucement and/or traceroute
- the whois database.
Using the Hinden/Haberman draft, one of those tools will go away.

So, as I wrote in this forum about a week ago, what I'd like
to see in that area is simply provider independant, registry allocated,
easy accessible (very low registry fees, no question asked)
public address space, and then forget about the "scope" discussion
which is an operational/business issue.

    - Alain.

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 12:31:43 -0700

Hello Alain,

> which is an operational/business issue.

I almost agree, except that I would insist on "no cost".
Low cost is often impossible, since that even a base charge
for $0.50 requires invoicing across several continents and
purchasing departments and levels of approval.  Plus there
aren't any lawyers or specious arguments about copyright to
pump up the cost argument (I hope!!).  I am imagining a URL
along the lines of
  http://www.iana.org/IPv6/local_address_registry/cgi-bin/doit.cgi

Is it a worry that someone would have to do some programming
for such an IANA web page?  I don't think there are any technical
details that are difficult.  Rate limiting and so on are not
very hard to specify.  It would even be possible to allocate
prefix blocks of different sizes and so on, depending on what
the final requirements are determined to be.  This can all be
done in a scalable way that is guaranteed to last for however
many centuries are needed.

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 16:46:16 -0400

> > to see in that area is simply provider independant, registry
> > allocated, easy accessible (very low registry fees, no question
> > asked) public address space, and then forget about the "scope"
> > discussion which is an operational/business issue.
> 
> purchasing departments and levels of approval.  

are you saying that the process for obtaining a domain name is already
too onerous?  seems like this should be an upper bound on the effort
required to get a PI prefix.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 13:29:15 +0200

> > > discussion which is an operational/business issue.

Actually I agree with this, but as we've seen (e.g. Geoff Huston's
comments) setting this up will take time and debate, whereas
the locally-assigned algorithm works instantly. True, it generates
operationally untraceable prefixes if they leak, but surely that
only hurts ISPs who don't filter properly.

> required to get a PI prefix.

True enough. But 10 EUR is a disincentive to hoarding or DoS, whereas
$0.00 would not be.

   Brian

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 08:42:52 -0400

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 13:29:15 +0200

> True enough. But 10 EUR is a disincentive to hoarding or DoS, whereas

I certainly don't have a problem with a 10 EUR one-time charge.  And I think
the registry has a lot more chance of success if it pays its own way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------