[arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements

Tue Sep 19 15:28:36 EDT 2017

I don't know if its a majority of devices yet, but with RFC8064 the use of
IIDs based on MAC addresses are no longer recommended, and stable addresses
are recommended to be generated on based on RFC7217.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8064
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7217

Now it will take a while for new code to completely permeate the industry,
but I believe the latest updated for Windows, MAC OS, iOS, and Android, all
use this new standard.  I have anecdotal evidence, by playing with my
iPhone that was just upgraded to iOS11 that it support this standard.  I
don't remember if this was a feature added iOS 10.X or not.

I believe it is safe to say the majority of new devices no longer use an
IID based on a MAC address.  Other than the MAC address of the interface is
one of the seeds into the pseudo-random algorithm.

Thanks

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

>
> On Sep 19, 2017, at 1:28 PM, Leif Sawyer <lsawyer at gci.com> wrote:
>
> The majority of devices no longer register on SLAAC with MAC-bound
> addresses.
>
>
> Technically, this isn’t true.
>
> The majority of devices now register both one or more privacy addresses
> _AND_ a MAC-bound address. The MAC-bound address on such devices is not
> used as a preferred or primary address for originating sessions, but can be
> used (if known by the remote device) as a stable address to connect to
> services provided by the host.
>
>
> Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6”, which
> is codified in RFC 4941
> means randomly generated addresses on a rotating basis.
>
> You could disable SLAAC-PE, and get "effectively static" IPv6 - but it's
> really not.
>
>
> I think the better consideration is that when we talk of allocation and/or
> assignment, we are talking of the allocation/assignment of network numbers
> end not of host-portions to end devices. As such, I don’t think that the
> blurring Albert perceives as being created by SLAAC truly exists regardless
> of whether it is static or not.
>
> Owen
>
>
> Leif
>
>
> *From:* ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>] *On Behalf Of *hostmaster at uneedus.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 19, 2017 3:25 AM
> *To:* arin-ppml at arin.net
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved
> IPv6 Registration Requirements
>
> [External Email]
>
> Placing ISP/LIR in place of ISP might be the best way to avoid confusion.
> As has been pointed out, they are really one and the same.
>
> Otherwise, I think that everything else about the draft is good and
> support.
>
> One thing to consider for future discussion is that because of the nature
> of IPv6, and its end-to-end nature, and assignment of public addresses,
> that the difference between allocate and assign using IPv6 on a specific
> /64 segment used for public wifi or otherwise is becoming more fluid.
>
> With SLAAC, an address is formed in part using a MAC address, which
> according to the rules for MAC addresses is supposed to be unique. It
> could be argued that these addresses are in effect "static", which could
> be argued is an assignment of part of the host network's /64, in effect a
> static /128 of that network. Due to the rules of SLAAC this happens
> without involvement of the host network, other than router advertisements,
>
> since the MAC originates from the guest device, as a different device will
>
> have a different MAC address.
>
> The requirement of at least a /64 in the proposed 6.5.5.4 is good in that
> end user networks that have SLAAC cannot be required to register the /128
> associated with someones MAC address on their request. Since this limit
> is in the proposal, I think we do not need to address the fact that end
> user networks running IPv6 and SLAAC in effect are assigning addresses to
> end user devices, even though they are not supposed to do this unless the
> addresses were allocated to them like an ISP/LIR. Unlike DHCP6, which has
> a time limit, one could argue that SLAAC addresses are static.
>
> Something to think about.
>
> Albert Erdmann
> Network Administrator
> Paradise On Line Inc.
>
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2017, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> > I refer you to section 6.5.1â€¦
> >
> > 6.5.1. Terminology
> >
> > The terms ISP and LIR are used interchangeably in this document and any
> use of either term shall be construed to include both meanings.
> > The term nibble boundary shall mean a network mask which aligns on a
> 4-bit boundary (in slash notation, /n, where n is evenly divisible by 4,
> allowing unit quantities of X such that 2^n=X where n is evenly divisible
> by 4, such as 16, 256, 4096, etc.)
> >
> > While it is a little unusual to have definitions outside of section 2,
> these were placed here in section 6.5.1 in order to avoid potential
> conflicts with certain language that was in section 4 at the time of
> writing.
> >
> > Owen
> >
> >> On Sep 18, 2017, at 1:14 PM, John Santos <JOHN at egh.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 9/18/2017 10:37 AM, ARIN wrote:
> >>> The following has been revised:
> >>>
> >>> * Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >>> 4) Add new section 6.5.5.4 "Registration Requested by Recipient" of
> the NRPM, to read: "If the downstream recipient of a static assignment of
> /64 or more addresses requests publishing of that assignment in ARIN's
> registration database, the ISP should register that assignment as described
> in section 6.5.5.1."
> >>
> >> I have been under the impression that a common goal of most people
> proposing NRPM changes is to eliminate the use of the term "ISP", since it
> is not defined in the policy and most or all the relevant sections also
> apply to other organizations that, while they re-allocate or reassign
> address space, are not, properly speaking, ISPs. Shouldn't this says "LIR"
> or "provider" or some other more generic term?
> >>
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> --
> >> John Santos
> >> Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
> >> 781-861-0670 ext 539 <(781)%20861-0670>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170919/ab6c6230/attachment.htm>