[arin-ppml] ULA-C

George Bonser gbonser at seven.com
Mon Apr 12 02:28:01 EDT 2010


I agree at a fundamental level that prefix doesn’t matter. And I will always add block for that space at my edge.  But it is just another tool in the box.

 

I wan’t meaning that anyone should “rely” on the prefix for security, I meant that it was another added layer to help protect you.

 

 

 

From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Eliot Lear
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 10:28 PM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ULA-C

 

As one of the authors of that document, much as I am no great fan, I have to say that no matter how hard we try, we have great difficulty convincing people that the prefix doesn't matter.  And there is some reason to believe that a well know prefix does matter, because it is easy for administrators (either side of the demarc) to install filters on well known prefixes, and at least some do.

My big issue with all of this is that by the time you're done with a registration service that might offer reverse DNS (is that what we're saying?), those filters are really the only difference between ULA-C and PI; and the actually necessity for them, as far as the SPs other customers are concerned, is considerably lessened since the spaces don't overlap.

Eliot

On 4/12/10 7:18 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: 

Well said.  Even RFC-1918 space can be routed across the global internet due to misconfiguration, so, I fail to see how that can possibly provide the protection described.
 
Admittedly, the number of misconfigurations increases in inverse proportion to topological proximity, but, nonetheless, lots of routing tables see RFC-1918 space on the global internet due to misconfiguration.
 
Why would ULA-C or any other "special" prefix be any different?
 
Owen
 
On Apr 11, 2010, at 7:14 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
 

	Oddly, I work for mondo-megacorp and I find it interesting that you're speaking for all entities that fit that category collectively.  
	 
	>From my vantage point ,the security posture associated with a particular prefix, service or network internal to our administrative domain is defined by requirements not by some intrinsic nature of the prefix.
	 
	George Bonser <gbonser at seven.com> <mailto:gbonser at seven.com>  wrote:
	 

		 
		 

			-----Original Message-----
			From: joel jaeggli [mailto:joelja at bogus.com]
			Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 6:37 PM
			To: George Bonser; mcr at sandelman.ca
			Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
			Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ULA-C
			 
			Mondo-megacorp will trivially have enough gua space to address it's
			extranet and the cost of aquiring space is negible compared to cost of
			deploying anything inside mondo-megacorp.
			 
			Joel
			 

		 
		Joel, you missed the point.  The do not want their financial backend systems on globally routable address space.
		 
		They do not want it to even be POSSIBLE that by some kind of misconfiguration, their systems could be reachable from the Internet.  So they put it in address space that is impossible to be reached across the public Internet.
		 
		 
		 
		 
		 

	_______________________________________________
	PPML
	You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
	the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
	Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
	http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
	Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

 
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20100411/f366bd28/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list