Re: IPv6 Unique Local Addresses (was Re: New Active Exploit: memcached on port 11211 UDP & TCP being exploited for reflection attacks)

[Mark Andrews <marka () isc org>]

> On 2 Mar 2018, at 11:48 am, Matt Erculiani <merculiani () gmail com> wrote:
>
> Not sure if this is the common thought, but if anyone has a network
> which requires static IP assignments, they can probably justify a
> request for a /48 from an RIR.  After all, ARIN's requirement for an
> end-user IPv6 block is, at minimum: "Justify why IPv6 addresses from
> an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable". I would think that ISP
> portability would satisfy this requirement, but If I'm wrong, I'm
> absolutely open to being corrected on this. But most home users have
> no need for static IPs, so the dynamic ISP assignment is perfectly
> fine.

ISP assigned addresses are perfectly fine for TALKING TO THE REST OF THE WORLD.
ISP assigned addresses are not perfectly fine for internal communication.

With IPv6 you use ULA along side ISP assigned addresses.

With IPv4 RFC 1918 address + NAT the home user has STATIC local addresses
for devices that need them.  Go look at your home router’s web pages.  You
will be able to assign static addresses to your internal machines via DHCP.

Are YOU going to tell everyone that sets values there that they no longer
can do the same thing for IPv6.  That they need to fully renumber all their
devices just because the ISP gave them a different prefix this morning?

> I think the tech will advance fast enough that keeping up with an IPv6
> route table will be a non-issue. IPv6 adoption is, unfortunately, slow
> enough that there will be no issues keeping up, even assuming a "slow"
> hardware refresh cycle.
>
> -M
>
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 5:48 PM, Mark Andrews <marka () isc org> wrote:
> > > On 2 Mar 2018, at 9:28 am, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Mar 1, 2018, at 1:20 PM, Harald Koch <chk () pobox com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 1 March 2018 at 15:18, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com <mailto:owen () delong com>> wrote:
> > > > Second, RFC-1918 doesn’t apply to IPv6 at all, and (fortunately) hardly anyone
> > > > uses ULA (the IPv6 analogue to RFC-1918).
> > > >
> > > > Wait. What's the objection to ULA? Is it just that NAT is bad, or is there something new?
> > >
> > > No particular objection, but I don’t see the point.
> > >
> > > What can you do with ULA that GUA isn’t suitable for?
> > >
> > > Owen
> >
> > ULA provide stable internal addresses which survive changing ISP
> > for the average home user. Now, I know you can do the same thing
> > by going to a RIR and getting a prefix but the RIR’s aren’t setup
> > to supply prefixes like that to 10 billion of us.
> >
> > They are also in a specific range which makes setting filtering
> > rules easier for everyone else.
> >
> > Now I would love it if we could support 100 billion routes in the
> > DFZ but we aren’t anywhere near being able to do that which would
> > be a requirement for abandoning ULA.  Until them they have there
> > place.
> >
> > Mark
> > --
> > Mark Andrews, ISC
> > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka () isc org

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka () isc org