[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: ietf
Subject: Re: IP's for point-to-point and loopbacks
From: Junior Corazza <corazza () incert ! com ! br>
Date: 2017-10-28 1:19:54
Message-ID: 1CED869D-B1D2-43DC-9A52-A39B4F26D1A4 () incert ! com ! br
[Download RAW message or body]
I had thought about the blocks of RFC6598, but because it is a well-known RFC I can \
have problems of the users thinking that they are behind a NAT.
> From what I have seen to this moment in this discussion is that it may be \
> interesting to continue with the blocks of RFC1918 or use the blocks of RFC6598.
Thank you all
Em 27/10/2017 20:09, "ietf-bounces@ietf.org em nome de ietf-request@ietf.org" \
<ietf-bounces@ietf.org em nome de ietf-request@ietf.org> escreveu:
Send ietf mailing list submissions to
ietf@ietf.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
ietf-request@ietf.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
ietf-owner@ietf.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ietf digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: IP's for point-to-point and loopbacks (Brian E Carpenter)
2. Re: IP's for point-to-point and loopbacks (Paul Wouters)
3. Re: Proposal to revise ISOC's mission statement
(Charles Eckel (eckelcu))
4. Re: Proposal to revise ISOC's mission statement
(Spencer Dawkins at IETF)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 08:35:16 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IP's for point-to-point and loopbacks
Message-ID: <3a41b5f8-b711-cc27-d9ca-f75e7ba48da0@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> At first I thought of using the blocks of RFC1918, but this IPs are well known \
and can cause a false impression on the end user.
Not just a false impression; if they show up in traceroutes they can be extremely \
misleading.
Has anyone considered (mis)using 100.64.0.0/10 (RFC6598) for this sort of \
purpose?
...
>> Finally we are thinking of using the blocks that I will present below, as they \
are little known and not routed worldwide. >>
>> 198.18.0.0/15
>> 192.0.0.0/24
>> 192.0.2.0/24
>> 192.88.99.0/24
>> 198.51.100.0/24
>> 203.0.113.0/24
>>
>> What do you think about this?
A very bad idea. They are all reserved for a reason, and some
of them are well known.
192.88.99.0/24 would a particularly dangerous choice (see RFC7526).
The RIRs make it clear that none of these should be used, e.g. APNIC:
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority SPECIAL-IPV4-REGISTRY-IANA-RESERVED \
(NET-192-0-0-0-1) 192.0.0.0 - 192.0.0.255 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority \
DS-LITE-RFC-6333-11-IANA-RESERVED (NET-192-0-0-0-2) 192.0.0.0 - 192.0.0.7
NetName: 6TO4-RELAY-ANYCAST-IANA-RESERVED
NetHandle: NET-192-88-99-0-1
Parent: NET192 (NET-192-0-0-0-0)
NetType: IANA Special Use
Comment: Addresses starting with "198.18." or "198.19." are set aside for use in \
isolated laboratory networks used for benchmarking and performance testing. They \
should never appear on the Internet and if you see Internet traffic using these \
addresses, they are being used without permission.
Comment: Addresses starting with "192.0.2.", "198.51.100.", or "203.0.113." are \
reserved for use in documentation and sample configurations. They should never \
be used in a live network configuration. No one has permission to use these \
addresses on the Internet.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 23:54:41 +0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IP's for point-to-point and loopbacks
Message-ID: <B7EE2A70-3433-4030-A01A-EC871C78E68E@nohats.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
On Oct 27, 2017, at 23:35, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>> At first I thought of using the blocks of RFC1918, but this IPs are well known \
and can cause a false impression on the end user.
What is the false impression? They are NATed I take it?
> Not just a false impression; if they show up in traceroutes they can be \
extremely misleading.
I think users of traceroute are advanced enough to know rfc1918?
> Has anyone considered (mis)using 100.64.0.0/10 (RFC6598) for this sort of \
purpose?
Yes, I use it myself to hand out IP?s for IPsec VPN, as it has less chance of \
clashing with the user?s local preNAT IP range. Until others start abusing this range \
too.
>>> Finally we are thinking of using the blocks that I will present below, as \
they are little known and not routed worldwide. >>>
>>> 198.18.0.0/15
>>> 192.0.0.0/24
>>> 192.0.2.0/24
We use the example ranges for our unit testing so I have those permanently \
configured on our test machines and laptop ?
> A very bad idea. They are all reserved for a reason, and some
> of them are well known.
Even the ones that are a safe choice become unsafe once people start using these.
However, there is a lot of unused multicast and reserved space left to do \
assignments from. I?m not sure why we haven?t started nibbling on those yet, other \
then wanting to promote ipv6?
Paul
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 20:40:17 +0000
From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>
To: Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org>, Alia Atlas
<akatlas@gmail.com>
Cc: Doug Royer <douglasroyer@gmail.com>, Michael Richardson
<mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Gonzalo Camarillo
<Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>, IETF Discussion Mailing List
<ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Proposal to revise ISOC's mission statement
Message-ID: <CBF4104B-2DEF-4F88-AD9F-59996CB58735@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Overall I think the new mission statement is quite good. One specific comment \
inline.
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf <ietf-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Marc Petit-Huguenin \
<petithug@acm.org> Date: Friday, October 27, 2017 at 10:00 AM
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Cc: Doug Royer <douglasroyer@gmail.com>, Michael Richardson \
<mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>, \
"ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org> Subject: Re: Proposal to revise ISOC's mission \
statement
On 10/27/2017 09:46 AM, Alia Atlas wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org
> <mailto:petithug@acm.org>> wrote:
>
> On 10/27/2017 08:40 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> >
> > Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com \
<mailto:Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>> wrote:
> > > As you know, ISOC supports the IETF in several ways (in \
addition to
> > > providing funding). Please, think about how ISOC could help \
support the
> > > IETF in potentially new ways or how the current programs could \
make an
> > > even larger impact, and let's have a conversation in Singapore. \
Thanks! > >
> > My take is (in this order);
> > * longer, more involved Hackathons,
> > * open source reference implementations (%)
> > * cheaply and easily reproduceable test bed/skaffolding for \
complex protocols
> > * facilitating conformance testing, particularly for open source \
implementations. >
> If we are going in that direction then I think it about time that the \
IETF
> starts using formal methods to verify protocols, so instead of \
partially
> checking that a protocol works (which is the best that hackathons or \
testing
> can bring to the table), we have a guarantee that they do work.
> (self-serving too, as I am working since a couple years on yet another
> markdown language that does exactly that).
>
>
> The wonderful and frustrating thing is that there isn't a single activity \
that > will capture all of what would be useful.
Sure, but it would be a good start to have something in the ISOC mission \
statement about promoting protocol checking (hackathon, testing) and formal \
verifications of the IETF standards.
Rather than add more specific examples to the existing set of highlighted \
activities, how about adding something in the mission statement about implementation \
and application in addition to the development of open standards. This would leave it \
to the IETF community to decide on methods to achieve this, e.g. more emphasis on \
running code, reference implementations, protocol validation, workshops on enabling \
new standards and functionality, etc.
Cheers,
Charles
> Luckily, these can be bitten off in smaller chunks. How would either of \
you > experiment with creating the efforts your are suggesting?
> What support is needed? Why would folks be motivated to help or able to \
see > what incremental success looks like?
>
> Incidentally, do check out the Code Lounge at IETF 100 as an effort to \
encourage > Hackathon-style coding to continue...
>
> Regards,
> Alia
>
> >
> > (for instance, it's particularly difficult to create complex enough
> > infrastructures to test routing protocols such as BGP4, but this \
also applies > > to SIDR, S/MIME, OAUTH and even some IPsec setups)
> >
> > Looking up, I see a theme which is really about getting from \
Proposed
> > Standard to Internet Standard faster and in ways that engages more \
pieces of > > the vendor and operational communities.
> >
> > (%)-you may say this is self-serving, and I agree. So I'll just make \
my > interest explicit.
> >
> > --
> > Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca
> <mailto:mcr%2BIETF@sandelman.ca>>, Sandelman Software Works
> > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Marc Petit-Huguenin
> Email: marc@petit-huguenin.org <mailto:marc@petit-huguenin.org>
> Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org <https://marc.petit-huguenin.org>
> Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug>
>
>
--
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Email: marc@petit-huguenin.org
Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org
Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 17:08:31 -0500
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>
Cc: Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org>, Alia Atlas
<akatlas@gmail.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, IETF
Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>, Doug Royer
<douglasroyer@gmail.com>, Gonzalo Camarillo
<Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: Proposal to revise ISOC's mission statement
Message-ID:
<CAKKJt-fanzcuo0=SRS+U9H8HhFQEK+SgRx04bw2i1QQAJdPZCg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
FWIW,
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <eckelcu@cisco.com>
wrote:
> Overall I think the new mission statement is quite good. One specific
> comment inline.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf <ietf-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Marc Petit-Huguenin <
> petithug@acm.org>
> Date: Friday, October 27, 2017 at 10:00 AM
> To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
> Cc: Doug Royer <douglasroyer@gmail.com>, Michael Richardson <
> mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>,
> "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: Proposal to revise ISOC's mission statement
>
> On 10/27/2017 09:46 AM, Alia Atlas wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin <
> petithug@acm.org
> > <mailto:petithug@acm.org>> wrote:
> >
> > On 10/27/2017 08:40 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> > >
> > > Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com <mailto:
> Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>> wrote:
> > > > As you know, ISOC supports the IETF in several ways (in
> addition to
> > > > providing funding). Please, think about how ISOC could
> help support the
> > > > IETF in potentially new ways or how the current programs
> could make an
> > > > even larger impact, and let's have a conversation in
> Singapore. Thanks!
> > >
> > > My take is (in this order);
> > > * longer, more involved Hackathons,
> > > * open source reference implementations (%)
> > > * cheaply and easily reproduceable test bed/skaffolding for
> complex protocols
> > > * facilitating conformance testing, particularly for open
> source implementations.
> >
> > If we are going in that direction then I think it about time
> that the IETF
> > starts using formal methods to verify protocols, so instead of
> partially
> > checking that a protocol works (which is the best that
> hackathons or testing
> > can bring to the table), we have a guarantee that they do work.
> > (self-serving too, as I am working since a couple years on yet
> another
> > markdown language that does exactly that).
> >
> >
> > The wonderful and frustrating thing is that there isn't a single
> activity that
> > will capture all of what would be useful.
>
> Sure, but it would be a good start to have something in the ISOC
> mission statement about promoting protocol checking (hackathon, testing)
> and formal verifications of the IETF standards.
>
> Rather than add more specific examples to the existing set of highlighted
> activities, how about adding something in the mission statement about
> implementation and application in addition to the development of open
> standards. This would leave it to the IETF community to decide on methods
> to achieve this, e.g. more emphasis on running code, reference
> implementations, protocol validation, workshops on enabling new standards
> and functionality, etc.
I think that's just about right.
Spencer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/attachments/20171027/518f969f/attachment.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
ietf mailing list
ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
------------------------------
End of ietf Digest, Vol 113, Issue 127
**************************************
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic