4 ms·

This project squats on the 0200::/7 prefix, which was originally allocated by https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1888 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/htm

by p1mrx 5y ago

This project squats on the 0200::/7 prefix, which was originally allocated by https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1888 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1888 in 1996.

octoberfranklin 5y ago
RFC1888 is obsolete. There is even a subsequent RFC whose title is, exactly, "RFC 1888 Is Obsolete": https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4048 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4048 Moreover, RFC1888 never moved beyond "experimental" status. Look at its heading, where it says "Obsoleted by: 4048 Category: Experimental", and its preface which explicitly states that "This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind."
- p1mrx 5y ago
  Yes, that's why I provided a reference, but it remains true that they're squatting the prefix. What is your point?
  - thomaszander 5y ago
    Using. Can't squat something that is officially discontinued. What is yours?
    - eadmund 5y ago
      It's not officially allocated, either. You can squat something that is not available for use. I see that they don't use ULA after all, but their approach still spends 7 bits on the prefix.
      - thomaszander 5y ago
        > their approach still spends 7 bits on the prefix. The Yggdrasil people are very clear that this is a research project. Not to be used in production, to be used at your own risk etc etc etc. In that light I find it unfair to claim it spends addressspace. Which, I might add, is pretty darn huge and we are not going to run out of addresses any time soon. If ever. Maybe pedantic, but needed to point out that the 7 in `0200/7` of the usage is the opposite of being spent. The 7 first bits are the mask you need to apply to indicate that it is INSIDE the yggdrasil address-space. Which means that they only 'spend' 1 bit from from the first byte. Not 7.
        eadmund 5y ago
        My comment about spending bits makes more sense in the context of my other comment about the cryptographic (in)security of Yggdrasil addresses. I agree with you — in the context of IPv6 addressing in general, who cares about 7 bits? Heck, who cares about 64 bits?
        thomaszander 5y ago
        > the cryptographic (in)security of Yggdrasil addresses. Fair enough, I didn't catch that one. The addresses generated has changed already from 0.3 to 0.4 (which is the series we see today), I expect that something will change again in future to make brute forcing harder. Notice that in all cases the same IPv6 range was used, reusing the same space as upgrades change the individuals' IP address.
SSLy 5y ago
I happen to work in the industry that made NSAPs, and let me tell you, _no one_ uses them for routing over IP. And the CLNS setups are dying out.
MayeulC 5y ago
Ideally the project would use link-local addresses, but to quote Arceliar [1] (one of the devs): > there's no standard way to specify these interfaces across platforms / number these interfaces intelligently. if there was, we could have set aside a specific interface number for ygg, and then just used link-local addresses, which is technically more correct than using a global address that isn't actually global [1]: https://matrix.to/#/!vVtVcVdzAdhGFLzFwm:matrix.org/$qpV7j6LYu4FgZUUn5O9DoZJsVbOCyFWVdasAxQcrmj0?via=matrix.org&via=libera.chat&via=tchncs.de https://matrix.to/#/!vVtVcVdzAdhGFLzFwm:matrix.org/$qpV7j6LY...

by p1mrx 5y ago

This project squats on the 0200::/7 prefix, which was originally allocated by https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1888 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1888 in 1996.

octoberfranklin 5y ago

RFC1888 is obsolete. There is even a subsequent RFC whose title is, exactly, "RFC 1888 Is Obsolete": https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4048 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4048 Moreover, RFC1888 never moved beyond "experimental" status. Look at its heading, where it says "Obsoleted by: 4048 Category: Experimental", and its preface which explicitly states that "This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind."

p1mrx 5y ago
Yes, that's why I provided a reference, but it remains true that they're squatting the prefix. What is your point?
- thomaszander 5y ago
  Using. Can't squat something that is officially discontinued. What is yours?
  - eadmund 5y ago
    It's not officially allocated, either. You can squat something that is not available for use. I see that they don't use ULA after all, but their approach still spends 7 bits on the prefix.
    - thomaszander 5y ago
      > their approach still spends 7 bits on the prefix. The Yggdrasil people are very clear that this is a research project. Not to be used in production, to be used at your own risk etc etc etc. In that light I find it unfair to claim it spends addressspace. Which, I might add, is pretty darn huge and we are not going to run out of addresses any time soon. If ever. Maybe pedantic, but needed to point out that the 7 in `0200/7` of the usage is the opposite of being spent. The 7 first bits are the mask you need to apply to indicate that it is INSIDE the yggdrasil address-space. Which means that they only 'spend' 1 bit from from the first byte. Not 7.
      - eadmund 5y ago
        My comment about spending bits makes more sense in the context of my other comment about the cryptographic (in)security of Yggdrasil addresses. I agree with you — in the context of IPv6 addressing in general, who cares about 7 bits? Heck, who cares about 64 bits?
        thomaszander 5y ago
        > the cryptographic (in)security of Yggdrasil addresses. Fair enough, I didn't catch that one. The addresses generated has changed already from 0.3 to 0.4 (which is the series we see today), I expect that something will change again in future to make brute forcing harder. Notice that in all cases the same IPv6 range was used, reusing the same space as upgrades change the individuals' IP address.

SSLy 5y ago

I happen to work in the industry that made NSAPs, and let me tell you, _no one_ uses them for routing over IP. And the CLNS setups are dying out.

MayeulC 5y ago

Ideally the project would use link-local addresses, but to quote Arceliar [1] (one of the devs): > there's no standard way to specify these interfaces across platforms / number these interfaces intelligently. if there was, we could have set aside a specific interface number for ygg, and then just used link-local addresses, which is technically more correct than using a global address that isn't actually global [1]: https://matrix.to/#/!vVtVcVdzAdhGFLzFwm:matrix.org/$qpV7j6LYu4FgZUUn5O9DoZJsVbOCyFWVdasAxQcrmj0?via=matrix.org&via=libera.chat&via=tchncs.de https://matrix.to/#/!vVtVcVdzAdhGFLzFwm:matrix.org/$qpV7j6LY...