[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ipng
Subject:    Re: WG Last Call for for draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis
From:       Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter () gmail ! com>
Date:       2022-06-19 1:46:20
Message-ID: 085fed0f-4a83-3aac-4c2a-c84da5d5589d () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 19-Jun-22 11:49, David Farmer wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 17:16 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com \
> <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>> wrote: 
> 1) While this is an interesting issue, I'm not convinced by David's suggestion to \
> add it here as an appendix. I fear that it would distract as much as it would help. \
>  
> I’ll buy that, but;
> 
> 2) For older home routers, the installation instructions told me something like \
> "type 10.1.1.1 into your browser" (I'm looking at the instructions for a D-Link \
> purchased in 2007). But my current  home router simply provides "fritz.box" in \
> local DNS. For IPv4, that resolves to 192.168.178.1. But for IPv6, it resolves to a \
> ULA and a GUA with pseudorandom IIDs. Problem solved. (It does have an LLA too, of \
> course, also with a pseudorandom IID.) 
> This is a case where IPv6 is clearly safer than IPv4. You can find a home router's \
> IPv4 address in public documentation or by a very short search. You can find its \
> IPv6 address by searching a space of size 2^64. 
> 
> Then back to my question, if we have to use IPv4 to bootstrap the router, aren’t \
> you basically admitting at least use case #2 is bogus, if not the other two as \
> well?

Not in the IPv6-only future. Now that of course gets us into a whole other \
discussion.

> How do we convince the browser community to take this seriously? Why should they \
> bother, because we say so?

Well, at least one large browser-supporting company has done a lot of other things to \
advance the usage of IPv6, but indeed this is a long game. The idea is to get the \
syntax on record for when the use case makes itself felt.

> I also don’t buy Ted’s argument about typing IPv6 LLAs in, people type in MAC \
> addresses every day, in support tickets, self-service MAC address registration \
> tools, like to register their cable modem, in DHCP configurations, etc… Yes, we cut \
> & paste them when we can, but that isn't always practical.

That's correct, but I don't think it's too hard (for any given o/s) to write a script \
that does the cut and paste for you. I'm not literate in Javascript, otherwise I'd \
have a go at it right now.  
> Further, I'll bet those same D-Link instructions tells you what a MAC address is, \
> and where to find it on the label in case you need to tell your provider about it, \
> And, I'm pretty sure there is an option for MAC spoofing, so you can type in the \
> MAC address of your old router into the D-Link, in case that is easier than \
> registering a new one with your provider

You're right that the MAC address is on the label.

> An IPv6 LLA is only slightly more complicated than a MAC address, especially if you \
> use a EUI-64 LLA. Yes, [RFC8064] recommends not using EUI-64s, but to quote \
> [RFC2119]; 
> The phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular \
> circumstances when the particular behavior is acceptable or even useful. 
> 
> I’m just saying, it might be useful to put in a document, this is one case where a \
> EUI-64 LLA could be useful and why. 
> As for MDNS, I'm all for it, but where is the document for browsers to support that \
> option? And again, why would browsers ever support Zone ID in IPv6 literals, if \
> MDNS works so much better?

I think the use cases are mainly ones that would arise when basic stuff wasn't \
working. As my FritzBox case shows, once you have local name resolution working, the \
use case vanishes.  
> Anyway, I think the document's rationale for this work needs to be stronger, and \
> not so easy to poke holes into it. I was only providing my suggestion for \
> improvement, if you have better ideas go with those.

Understood, and thanks.

    Brian

> 
> Thanks
> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]