Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6

[Mark Smith <nanog () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org>]

Hi Kevin,

On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 20:13:22 -0700
"Kevin Oberman" <oberman () es net> wrote:

> > Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 10:24:41 +1030
> > From: Mark Smith <nanog () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org>
> >
> > On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:26:54 -0700
> > "Kevin Oberman" <oberman () es net> wrote:
> >
> > > > Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:40:41 +1030
> > > > From: Mark Smith <nanog () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org>
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:31:22 +0100
> > > > Randy Bush <randy () psg com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
> > > >
> > > > Drafts are drafts, and nothing more, aren't they?
> > >
> > > Drafts are drafts. Even most RFCs are RFCs and nothing more.
> >
> > No, drafts are documents that can be submitted by anybody, and can say
> > anything, where as RFCs have been through an IETF evaluation process.
> >
> > > Only a
> > > handful have ever been designated as "Standards". I hope this becomes
> > > one of those in the hope it will be taken seriously. (It already is by
> > > anyone with a large network running IPv6.)
> > >
> > > The point is to READ the draft arguments and see why /127s are the right
> > > way to address P2P circuits.
> >
> > I suggest you search the v6ops mailing list, as I've read it multiple
> > times, including all revisions, and have pointed out multiple issues
> > with it. 
> >
> > > Also, you might note the contributors to the
> > > draft. They are people well know on this list who have real, honest to
> > > goodness operational experience in running networks and really understand
> > > that a /64 on a P2P connection is a serious security problem. 
> >
> > As do I. You can see my analysis of the issue, and how I think it
> > should be fixed properly, not mitigated for one type of link at the
> > following URLs.
> >
> > http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2010/msg00543.html
> >
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg12400.html
>
> I don't entirely agree with your arguments, but the approach looks, at
> first glance, to be quite interesting and could quite possibly fix the
> problem. I'll need to digest it a bit better. 
>
> Have you or someone else authored a draft on this proposal?

I've started writing one on the nonce solution, as it can be made to
interoperate with existing deployed ND NS/NA mechanisms.

Regards,
Mark.

> In the
> meantime, I still support /127s for P2P links.
> -- 
> R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
> Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
> Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
> E-mail: oberman () es net                     Phone: +1 510 486-8634
> Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4  EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751