netdev - Re: ANNOUNCE: Enhanced IP v1.4

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180604043426.GB11775@1wt.eu>
Date:   Mon, 4 Jun 2018 06:34:26 +0200
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>, Sam Patton <sam@...ancedip.org>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: Enhanced IP v1.4

On Sun, Jun 03, 2018 at 03:41:08PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 
> 
> On 06/03/2018 01:37 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
> 
> > This is not an inconsequential mechanism that is being proposed. It's
> > a modification to IP protocol that is intended to work on the
> > Internet, but it looks like the draft hasn't been updated for two
> > years and it is not adopted by any IETF working group. I don't see how
> > this can go anywhere without IETF support. Also, I suggest that you
> > look at the IPv10 proposal since that was very similar in intent. One
> > of the reasons that IPv10 shot down was because protocol transition
> > mechanisms were more interesting ten years ago than today. IPv6 has
> > good traction now. In fact, it's probably the case that it's now
> > easier to bring up IPv6 than to try to make IPv4 options work over the
> > Internet.
> 
> +1
> 
> Many hosts do not use IPv4 anymore.
> 
> We even have the project making IPv4 support in linux optional.

I agree on these points, but I'd like to figure what can be done to put
a bit more pressure on ISPs to *always* provide IPv6. It's still very
hard to have decent connectivity at home and without this it will continue
to be marginalize.

I do have IPv6 at home (a /48, waste of addressing space, I'd be fine
with less), there's none at work (I don't even know if the ISP supports
it, at least it was never ever mentioned so probably they don't know
about this), and some ISPs only provide a /64 which is as ridiculous
as providing a single address as it forces the end user to NAT thus
breaking the end-to-end principle. Ideally with IoT at the door, every
home connection should have at least a /60 and enterprises should have
a /56, and this by default, without having to request anything.

Maybe setting up a public list of ISPs where users don't have at least
a /60 by default could help, but I suspect that most of them will
consider that as long as their competitors are on the list there's no
emergency.

Willy