From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org On Behalf Of Roland Bless

but there are similar reasons for using ULAs:
- They are not intended to be routed in the Internet
- They use a well-known prefix to allow for easy filtering at site
  boundaries.

WEG] from the below it sounds like the first item isn't always true. The second 
item is easily solved using proper address planning within the application and 
network design - eg allocate the block for this use out of a certain range of 
the RIR or LIR delegated space, and filter only that at the site boundary. I.e. 
if you know that the lower /56 of each block is by convention used for this 
purpose, you can filter accordingly much easier than if you have to filter 
randomly-chosen blocks. All it takes is a bit of prior planning when defining 
the addressing plan for the network.


So there may be cases where these networks get connected to the
Internet somehow, but usually only by using a security gateway/proxy,
because they should stay isolated, i.e., direct global access
to individual devices is usually not desired at all.

WEG] A firewall/gateway can do this regardless of the address space that you 
are using. What you're proposing is a use case similar to the IPv4 model of 
using RFC1918 addresses + NAT/NAPT at the edge of the private network, and you 
will not find good support for extending that model to IPv6 because it breaks 
end to end connectivity and there are none of the address constraints that are 
present in IPv4 - everything that wants a globally unique address can get one. 
Even if there is a legitimate reason for not wanting that end to end 
connectivity in your case, if we make an IPv6 version of RFC1918+NAT available, 
there's nothing preventing it from being used by everyone that equates that 
implementation with "better security" today in IPv4, no matter how much we say 
"don't do that..." You can still use a single gateway to control how devices 
access the internet (and more importantly, how the internet accesses those 
devices) without pushing them into ULA space by filtering traffic 
 as necessary at the ingress/egress point without using the addresses 
themselves as an obfuscation mechanism. That way you remove none of the 
flexibility if you end up needing connectivity later, but retain the desired 
security.

You also note uniqueness as desirable to manage potential mergers and conflicts 
between manufacturers on networks that were previously not connected. I think 
that the solution here is to ensure that the gear in question supports a 
relatively straightforward renumbering procedure - divorce the network's prefix 
from the device ID in such a way that the network prefix can be altered on one 
or both networks should they be merged. Even if the device has a partially 
hard-coded address, it should be capable of accepting a different prefix should 
the situation dictate it. The 6renum working group is currently working on 
exactly this problem (making renumbering easier in IPv6 enterprise 
deployments), and would love to have input from you on specific considerations 
within the industries that are represented in this thread. (disclaimer, I am 
one of the 6renum WG chairs).

Wes George

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable 
proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to 
copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for 
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not 
the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any 
dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the 
contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be 
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender 
immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and 
any printout.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to