[ipv6hackers] Dynamic prefixes & privacy (was: IPv6 prefix changing)

Gert Doering gert at space.net
Wed Mar 21 22:45:06 CET 2012


On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 12:48:30PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 03:52:20PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >> Apple could easily have obtained an IPv6 GUA prefix for this purpose. The use of ULA is entirely optional.
> >> 
> >> Free your mind from the IPv4 private vs. public address mindset and allow yourself to consider a world where
> >> GUA is relatively easy to obtain and can be used for non-connected purposes without penalty or difficulty.
> > 
> > "GUAs distributed with the intention of not having them routable world-wide"
> > is different from ULAs in exactly which way?
> Who said anything about intent on distribution. The intent on distribution is to uniquely number networks and hosts. Whether those networks and hosts are immediately connected, connected at some future time, or never connected becomes entirely the purview of the operator and irrelevant to the issuing agency.
> That's the difference... GUAs provide maximum flexibility to the operator.

Unless you find a way to make "routing arbitrary prefixes assigned by
entity A via ISP B, C or D" *scale*, assigning GUAs outside of the
context of the operator who is supposed to route them not very much
different from an ULA - a block of 128 bit numbers, that needs a NPT
to be used on the Internet.

But this is becoming somewhat silly.  I'm sure you know that, so I'm 
wondering which aspect of "use GUAs assigned by some arbitrary entity"
I'm overlooking that might make it interesting.

> >> I realize that this would require some RIR policy changes and I support those. If the IETF will get on board
> >> with recognizing that local GUA is a better alternative than ULA, then I don't think it would be hard to get
> >> the RIRs to adopt appropriate policy around this.
> > 
> > ULA-C would be that, but the IETF seems to have abandoned that idea.
> Right... ULA-C wouldn't be that. ULA-C would be creating a new artificial PI that was not subject to RIR policies and guidelines and would, therefore have been a disaster. Abandoning it was a really good thing. ULA-R is bad enough.

And how exactly is "changing the RIR policies to allow assignment of
local GUAs" different?

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

More information about the Ipv6hackers mailing list