Subject: Re: Thoughts on the draft-hinden last call

From: Fred Templin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 14:25:31 -0800

Pekka Savola wrote:

>On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Hans Kruse wrote:
>  
>
>>Please explain to me how the job of applications gets any easier if the 
>>local addressing is done with a hijacked prefix....
>>    
>>
>
>Why exactly should we care if party X's internal applications break
>because it hijacks a prefix?
>

Because simply allowing internal apps to break is in clear violation of the
robustness principle. (e.g., if two disconnected/intermittently-connected
sites that have somehow hijacked the same prefix encounter one another
we have what Data would call: "a simple matter/anti-matter reaction".)

For plenty of scenarios that call for local communications within sites, 
see:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-templin-ipv6-localcomm-03.txt

Fred
[email-masked]

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Hans Kruse <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:48:09 -0500

We don't, and that is my point.  The draft in question improves on that 
situation by creating a prefix that the rest of the network can easily deal 
with.  Internal apps may still break, although I would argue that the local 
addressing prefix opens some options to make that a little less likely...

--On Monday, November 03, 2003 23:19 +0200 Pekka Savola <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

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

Hans Kruse, Associate Professor
J. Warren McClure School of Communication Systems Management
Adjunct Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Ohio University, Athens, OH, 45701
740-593-4891 voice, 740-593-4889 fax

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 00:54:28 +0200 (EET)

I'll combine two answers in message..

[me:]

> addressing prefix opens some options to make that a little less likely...

No, the point is that when someone hijacks a prefix, they intentionally do 
something they know they should not do, and they "deserve" their 
applications to get broken.

If we specify a mechanism for local addressing that "just about works",
but still breaks apps, we've "blessed" a mechanism that doesn't work.  
That's even worse :-)

[Fred:]
> we have what Data would call: "a simple matter/anti-matter reaction".)

Yes, but the site who hijacked a prefix is lost beyond redemption.  Again, 
why should we care if their apps break?  (We certainly care about apps not 
breaking in "valid" deployment scenarios..)

---

From: Hans Kruse <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 18:48:05 -0500

OK, this is going to go around endlessly, so please re-read my original 
message where I said that there are some who simply do not agree that local 
addressing is needed -- I know that is your position and I respect it.  I 
also said that I firmly disagree and suggest that we have plenty of 
scenarios that suggest otherwise.  Lets not waste further bits on this 
argument.

--On Tuesday, November 04, 2003 00:54 +0200 Pekka Savola 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> situation by creating a prefix that the rest of the network can easily
>> deal  with.  Internal apps may still break, although I would argue that
>> the local  addressing prefix opens some options to make that a little
>> less likely...
>
> No, the point is that when someone hijacks a prefix, they intentionally
> do  something they know they should not do, and they "deserve" their
>> Because simply allowing internal apps to break is in clear violation of
>> the robustness principle. (e.g., if two
>> disconnected/intermittently-connected sites that have somehow hijacked
>> the same prefix encounter one another we have what Data would call: "a
>> simple matter/anti-matter reaction".)
>
> Yes, but the site who hijacked a prefix is lost beyond redemption.
> Again,  why should we care if their apps break?  (We certainly care about
> apps not  breaking in "valid" deployment scenarios..)
>
> --