[ipv6-wg] Hijacking unused address space for a private infrastructure - any legal consequences?

> Eh. So, you might want to consider not deploying insecure technology (SRv6) that has very obvious security problems, as has been pointed out on the various IETF lists, or misusing address space for something it is not meant for.

The next solution in the same draft https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-00
does not have the same problem. It has just one copy of the prefix in the destination address. Hence, it could be any length (even bigger the /64).

Ed/
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeroen Massar [mailto:jeroen at massar.ch] 
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 9:05 PM
To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard at huawei.com>
Cc: Gert Doering <gert at Space.Net>; JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ipv6-wg <ipv6-wg at ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Hijacking unused address space for a private infrastructure - any legal consequences?


> On 20220224, at 18:05, Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard at huawei.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jordi, Jeroen, Gert,
> Thanks for the answers. OK, It looks like not a legal problem.
> Is it any problem for RIRs if this behavior would proliferate? (many Carriers would cut something from FC/8)

Not the internet, not their problem IMHO.

If you start using address space that might clash, the problem becomes that when you eventually get bought out by each-other that you cannot actually merge your networks as you will have clashing space...

But, when you have millions, that should not be a problem right, or you could do what they do with IPv4: NAT NAT NAT NAT NAT....

[..]
> It is uSID SRv6 solution. It needs a short prefix for the infrastructure because the prefix is replicated in every entry of the SRH list.
[..]


Eh. So, you might want to consider not deploying insecure technology (SRv6) that has very obvious security problems, as has been pointed out on the various IETF lists, or misusing address space for something it is not meant for.

Greets,
 Jeroen