-----Original Message----- From: Ted Lemon <[email protected]> Date: Friday, February 22, 2013 6:48 AM To: Michael Thomas <[email protected]> Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <[email protected]>, Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Mark Townsley <[email protected]>, Dave Taht <[email protected]>, Jari Arkko <[email protected]>, John Jason Brzozowski <[email protected]>, "[email protected] Group" <[email protected]>, David Lamparter <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [homenet] Running code in Orlando
>On Feb 21, 2013, at 8:34 PM, Michael Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: >> Sigh all you like, but I share Dave's skepticism that ISP's renumbering >>my prefix >> willy-nilly and it just sort of works with naming -- including >>addresses squirrelled >> away in places they ought not be -- is going to work any time soon. I >>don't like to >> think that NAT is inevitable but frankly the people in this working >>group don't get >> to vote on that. > >It's probably also worth mentioning that in general ISPs that do this on >a regular basis are attacking their customer's network, and the resulting >instability is not the result of a failing on our part, but deliberate >action on the part of the ISP. [jjmb] not sure I would say renumbering is attacking, it may be referred to as running a network. FWIW this happens today with IPv4. > >There are countries where ISPs are required by law to _offer_ a change of >address every 24 hours for privacy purposes. At least in the cases I'm >aware of, ISPs don't _force_ this on their customers, but rather it's a >configuration option paranoid customers can choose, which may default to >on. This is an inconvenience to ISPs, because it causes address pool >churn, and requires a lot of extra bits to be allocated to PE devices to >accommodate all the deprecated addresses. [jjmb] first I have heard of this, interesting. > >Pretty much by definition, if you want to access your washing machine >while away from home, you're throwing that particular sort of privacy >right out the window. It wasn't buying you much anyway--fuzzing the >prefix by a few bits is very easy to reverse, and because of routing >hierarchies, IPv6 prefixes can't be assigned to the customer out of the >ISP's entire address space--by definition they will be restricted to >localities. > >The other use case for frequent renumbering is an ISP who wants to >prevent the customer from setting up servers. The washing machine is a >server. Either the ISP succeeds, or fails, but in either case, they are >acting directly against the customer's wishes. [jjmb] are a customer is violating their usage agreement with the ISP. >We can try to design a system that's robust with respect to attacks like >this, but in practice the best way to address this problem is to prevent >it happening on a regular basis to people who will care about it. _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
