Re: IAB and "private" numbering
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 04:40:20PM +0000, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Tony Tauber wrote:
The registries (including IANA as their root) should provide just that, a place to register the use of number resources to avoid collisions. I'm thinking that "private" number spaces should probably be used advisedly if not deprecated outright.
RIR's are taking heat (or some finger pointing atleast) for allocations that don't appear in the public route table. There are many reasons why
i rant, yet again.
doh!
what is this "the" public routing table? where does one get it? in my 25 years of networking I have NEVER seen it. i am convinced that it is a fictional as the "public" Internet. or the "DFZ" ... they do not exist, except in the fevered imaginations of marketing droids... and the virus is more virulent than the H5N1 strain. Note that it affects normally sane engineers who KNOW better.
'public routing table' == Internet nothing more, nothing less. this is distinct from SIPRnet and some portions of NIPRnet, or other 'private' networks out there.
back in the SRInic days, there was the "connected" and "unconnected" databases. ... to mark prefixes that were connected to the ARPAnet and those that were in "private" networks, like CSnet, NSFnet, and enterprise networks. Tony is right in this respect, RFC1918 space is a feeble attempt to get around/past the lack of address space that became apparent in IPv4 ... with IPv6, there is no real reason to try and recreate private space (leaving aside renumbering)
I don't believe there is a 'rfc1918' in v6 (yet), I agree that it doesn't seem relevant, damaging perhaps though :)
IMHO, assigning globally unique prefixes to those who utilize IP protocols, regardsless of whom else they choose to "see" via routing is the right course. every other attempt to split the assignements into "us" vs. "them" has had less than satisfactory results.
agreed
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 02:12:13AM +0000, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
'public routing table' == Internet
as seen from which ASN? or are they all the same? if you don't have a more specific, or a covering prefix and are not deluding yourself (aka Sprint circa 1994 w/ the great 192.0.0.0/3 lie) does NOT mean you have a full routing table... it just means you have a covering prefix or more specific prefix from each of your peers... <voila, the DFZ> does not mean you have all routes tho.
nothing more, nothing less. this is distinct from SIPRnet and some portions of NIPRnet, or other 'private' networks out there.
as alluded to earlier, "private" networks overtook the "Internet" before... it could happen again. :) --bill
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 02:12:13 +0000 (GMT) "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com> wrote: <snip>
I don't believe there is a 'rfc1918' in v6 (yet), I agree that it doesn't seem relevant, damaging perhaps though :)
Sort of do, with a random component in them to help attempt to prevent collisions : "RFC 4193 - Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses" http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc4193.html
IMHO, assigning globally unique prefixes to those who utilize IP protocols, regardsless of whom else they choose to "see" via routing is the right course. every other attempt to split the assignements into "us" vs. "them" has had less than satisfactory results.
agreed
See above ... that was pretty much the fundamental goal of ULAs - unique address space, not dependant on a provider, not intended to be globally routable, preferred over global addresses so that connections can survive global address renumbering events. Regards, Mark. -- "Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain constantly alert." - Bruce Schneier
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005, Mark Smith wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 02:12:13 +0000 (GMT) "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com> wrote:
<snip>
I don't believe there is a 'rfc1918' in v6 (yet), I agree that it doesn't seem relevant, damaging perhaps though :)
Sort of do, with a random component in them to help attempt to prevent collisions :
"RFC 4193 - Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses" http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc4193.html
and here I thought we voted that down in atleast ARIN space :( bummer, more failure coming your way as you sit and wait :(
I don't believe there is a 'rfc1918' in v6 (yet), I agree that it doesn't seem relevant, damaging perhaps though :)
So you how would interpret the combination of RFC4913 and the statistical analysis known as "the birthday problem"? I offer the interpretation of this as use of address space in a limited context that has a likelihood of collision at the prefix level with some other similar, but unrelated, use. I would characterize a more exact equivalent of RFC 1918 space in an IPv6 context as use of address space in a limited context that has a certainty of collision at the prefix level with some other similar, but unrelated, use. It would appear that we are already well advanced down a path of reproducing many of the aspects of IPv4 address architecture in IPv6, to the point of producing analogies of RFC1918 private address space. It also seems to me that this entire thread is constructed upon a somewhat dubious initial premise, but then again that's not exactly uncommon is it? :-) Geoff
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
...
I don't believe there is a 'rfc1918' in v6 (yet), I agree that it doesn't seem relevant, damaging perhaps though :)
Yes, there was rfc1918 in IPv6 right from the beginning: Site local addresses "0xF80" dont leave a site. They can be routed within a site but they never get outside. Just like rfc1918 addresses do. Link local addresses that cannot even leave a link. Even more restrictive than rfc1918. Just like old netbios used to be before it was ported to tcp/ip, ipx and decnet. regards Peter and Karin -- Peter and Karin Dambier The Public-Root Consortium Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49(6252)671-788 (Telekom) +49(179)108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter@peter-dambier.de mail: peter@echnaton.serveftp.com http://iason.site.voila.fr http://www.kokoom.com/iason
In message <4377924E.109@peter-dambier.de>, Peter Dambier writes:
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
...
I don't believe there is a 'rfc1918' in v6 (yet), I agree that it doesn't seem relevant, damaging perhaps though :)
Yes, there was rfc1918 in IPv6 right from the beginning:
Site local addresses "0xF80" dont leave a site. They can be routed within a site but they never get outside. Just like rfc1918 addresses do.
Yes, and site-local addresses have been removed from the spec, because of the many problems they cause. --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Sorry, I have been daydreaming :) But waking up is a nightmare too: Getting rid of all those locally administered addresses. Looks like it has taken me back to IPv4 for some time. There should never have been rfc1918 in the first place nor NAT either. Regards, Peter Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message <4377924E.109@peter-dambier.de>, Peter Dambier writes:
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
...
I don't believe there is a 'rfc1918' in v6 (yet), I agree that it doesn't seem relevant, damaging perhaps though :)
Yes, there was rfc1918 in IPv6 right from the beginning:
Site local addresses "0xF80" dont leave a site. They can be routed within a site but they never get outside. Just like rfc1918 addresses do.
Yes, and site-local addresses have been removed from the spec, because of the many problems they cause.
--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
-- Peter and Karin Dambier The Public-Root Consortium Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49(6252)671-788 (Telekom) +49(179)108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter@peter-dambier.de mail: peter@echnaton.serveftp.com http://iason.site.voila.fr http://www.kokoom.com/iason
participants (6)
-
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Christopher L. Morrow -
Geoff Huston -
Mark Smith -
Peter Dambier -
Steven M. Bellovin