Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6

Sun Oct 17 03:13:22 UTC 2010

> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 10:24:41 +1030
> From: Mark Smith <nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
> 
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:26:54 -0700
> "Kevin Oberman" <oberman at es.net> wrote:
> 
> > > Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:40:41 +1030
> > > From: Mark Smith <nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
> > > 
> > > On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:31:22 +0100
> > > Randy Bush <randy at 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? 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 at es.net			Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4  EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751