[retronet] RetroNet globally-routable address allocation policy

[Grant Taylor]

On 09/02/2018 01:08 PM, Mantas Mikulėnas wrote:
> Hello.

Hi,

> I found this project through the TUHS mailing list.

Welcome!  I figured there would be some overlap.  That's why I posted 
the message to TUHS to invite people, like yourself, to participate.  :-)

> I'm interested in old protocols like X.25 and ATM, though I don't actually 
> have any software nor hardware to use them with.

I am too.

Admittedly, RetroNet is no where near ready to do anything with X.25.  I 
don't see how we can functionally do anything with ATM.  But I'd love to 
learn something new and be proven wrong.

I need to learn a lot about X.25 too.

So I'll ask this:  What functionality would you like to see RetroNet 
offer for X.25?

> Hopefully there isn't some mismatch between old systems actually treating 
> them as site-local unicast with the special rules, and modern systems 
> treating them as global unicast.

That may be a problem.  I think it's also going to be highly situation 
dependent.

> RFC 4193 says that "locally assigned" prefixes (i.e. in fd00::/8) have a 
> 40-byte unique ID and give a /48 prefix. So you can assign a /48 per 
> user, there is no problem.

Cool.

> But RFC 4193 doesn't define any specific method for assigning prefixes 
> in the "centrally assigned" fc00::/8 range. If cjdns can get away with 
> littering the entire /8 with pubkey-based addresses, you could also get 
> away with assigning fc00:<ipv4>:<ipv4>::/48 or fc00:<idx>:<idx>::/48 to 
> each user.

I need to do some reading.

But it does sound like we can use it.

> I would also consider 3ffe::/16 (old 6bone) – unlikely to be reused 
> anytime soon, and with nostalgia already built in.

True.

> All of ff00::/8 is multicast addresses; you really don't want to use 
> that for unicast. (Though it sounds like you're mixing it up with 
> 0:0:0:0:0:ffff::/96, which is another special case.)

Agreed.

I think we have quite a bit we need to learn before messing with IPv6 in 
any capacity like the IPv4 100.64.0.0/10 Shared Address Space.

> (Apparently my presence in this list is a blatant violation of 
> chivanet.org <http://chivanet.org> terms of service. I had hoped that 
> something like RetroNet would have included the old idea of a global 
> internet without country or continent borders, but oh well.)

What‽

John:  Will you chime in here?

Mantas:  I think that the mailing list landed on chivanet.org because it 
was convenient for John to host it there.  We definitely want to get to 
the bottom of this.

John:  ‽



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3982 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mailman.chivanet.org/pipermail/retronet/attachments/20180902/6ee8fc4a/attachment.bin>