17 Matching Annotations
  1. Jun 2022
    1. nsure that you are aware of guidelines or obligations defined by yourorganizational governance and external factors, such as regulatory compliance requirements andindustry standards, that may mandate or emphasize specific focus

      IPv6, for example.

    1. Enabling IPv6 routers to convey information about networkconstraints such as maximum number of addressees per node.

      This should be easy to implement (?).

    2. Such guidance would elaborate, among other things, on the usage ofIPv6 addresses for incoming communications and for outgoingcommunications. For example, for incoming communications, hostsmight want to employ only the smallest-scope applicable addresses(if available) and, if stable addresses were available, onlyaccept incoming connections on such addresses. For outgoingcommunications, hosts might prefer temporary addresses, unless thecorresponding communication instances are expected to be long-lived (e.g., SSH sessions).

      Revising or replacing guidance in RFC 6724?

    3. SLAAC hastraditionally employed long lifetimes for network configurationinformation, meaning that stale information could be employed for anunacceptably long period of time. DCHPv6 operates on the samepremise, and lacks widespread support for RECONFIGURE messages

      Do DDI vendors/BIND ISC/Kea support these?

    4. A host may end up employing predictable addresses resulting fromDHCPv6, thus thwarting the security and privacy improvements ofSLAAC-configured addresses (i.e., [RFC7217] and [RFC8981]).

      Is this an actual operational deployment tension between optimal address-focused security (SLAAC bolt-ons) and centralized control (also implying security of a different type) with DHCP?

    5. Most of the challenges associated with the use of multiple addressescan be addressed by allocating one /64 per host via mechanisms suchas DHCPv6-PD [RFC8415].

      Which challenges and how?

    6. Secondly, as discussed inSection 5.2.1, it would require application programmers to understandall the subtleties associated with IPv6 addressing, and would alsolead to duplicate code on all applications.

      And yet this might be glibly and repeatedly recommended by some in v6ops as a way to fix the ULA brokenness problem.

    7. Secondly, performing address/selection filtering at theapplication level may not mitigate some possible attacks.

      Is there a general security principle around preventing or mitigating DoS attacks before they reach the application layer?

    8. In order to better mitigate network activity correlation and/orpossibly reduce host exposure, an implementation might want to eitherreduce the preferred lifetime of temporary addresses or, even better,generate one new IPv6 address for each application or new transportprotocol instance (sometimes referred to as "ephemeral addresses").However, reduced address lifetimes and the use of multiple IPv6addresses may have a negative impact on the network (please seeSection 6.3).

      What is the threshold of network resources below which additional temporary addresses per application and associated state are feasible?

    9. Address reachability represents the area of the network (and theassociated conditions), where an address can be used for receivingand transmitting packets.

      How is this definition not identical to address scope? The examples offered for scope are based on implicit characteristics. The example offered for reachability include security policy and configuration choices determining reachability within a scope but not necessarily coupled to it; e.g., "mediated reachability."

    10. Some organizations have opted to employ NPT [RFC6296] such that:* The local network is isolated of renumbering events caused by theupstream provider.* The local network employs the same address space regardless of theupstream provider employed to communicate with the external realm.

      Well that's the theory anyway. How much actual deployment is there of NPTv6?

    11. As a result, addresses that do not uniquely identifyinterfaces Internet-wide are considered to have "non-global" or"limited" scope. Grouping addresses in such a way is simply usefulfor the purpose of discussing address properties.

      I.e., Global vs everything else. This scope definition is not as explicit as global and link-local which would necessitate the definition (or at least some acknowledgment) of one or more intermediate scopes (e.g., ULA).