Re: [Int-area] Continuing the addressing discussion: what is an address anyway?

Tom Herbert <> Tue, 25 January 2022 18:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B5A43A0907 for <>; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 10:17:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K-FuJo8eywG0 for <>; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 10:17:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBFB13A08F6 for <>; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 10:17:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id h7so32441399ejf.1 for <>; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 10:17:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=N645MSe2xmYIMHk/x7GSofPp2Xb/zUPsbgB8Vl16MjQ=; b=t0A9C6TywUmNjjD2VxDrHyz1qH67DfN2z8vp46jhfuTwaOY+auD8N5SgjHPuYzLJvg AOiSGLBbYYhTskr0Ud9CPgVLiLqbUtQRLuGQ7prUFj7TLmlJCtKZ71P3Ft6XTm6fB/T+ bdVrSrHlZtQ1Yvm+4Sw0PXCXTmcFB2vGtYCuCWUMPuesHb6xvU+yarQP1SL4O1d/skWo 9S4VLaX6cYNJbDKRhVI9sE85trSh0J/pZ3lU8uV4+p6fQrksxKxApE2qrxxmwJWsD0Od UZl/BHzwqyh/0EjTUt4aJKuSoRWLQsIZMtrGOhrD3f7vQaUFxZEojKNQVA7fForMvs4p rnzg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=N645MSe2xmYIMHk/x7GSofPp2Xb/zUPsbgB8Vl16MjQ=; b=XgPmq0A7QghO3CqqnMUn/X+eBvoYRpnp4dRD/nR3W5hP7ktsauLJAFTUtP3eZgho2e EUvCzJenBJWPoQ5DP2yKtqHyu6eWAEfbYj3n109VfHNuwDRoSwJs4jU/o+6FZgzc2XPS 5EmVzLsrlX9cM9+P7EVfXI7taatT38LVnBbqmXSypPYiMeVCmlQNRX9BWuvG6brstFzO sbPRQnYP43WZYDg5YXxAxJ7a4zUkObEqGgn/OQz0OJkPsrSyb6TpDYYZJ6rxmsW2jXOL 7HlcOpUzeP74bSHw0XsmQFNKBtZKLHgKDrUjF+0QJNJeFieprM+fOdx14MCRNSgXsAL1 lA8A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532GeGp1YmlPkYpaqkKEEgIgLKROcI1Az6XwjLpq9bv6y2XfBmVb 1MamnsWbWrb0Vi0vreZRS5F7G1z0qO9S1y6PDryR9NJ4CUWZyw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyL9vh/FpRbeqdWLhaDXJm5DgUODlejYdPqKQlsY7HEAZfPji4RBgXKzQicEyPbydiS/qXsfMn8nXqJ9sjDuDc=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:c047:: with SMTP id bm7mr17207843ejb.334.1643134660567; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 10:17:40 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Tom Herbert <>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 10:17:29 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Geoff Huston <>
Cc: Dirk Trossen <>, "" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Continuing the addressing discussion: what is an address anyway?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area WG Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 18:17:50 -0000

On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 3:38 AM Geoff Huston <> wrote:
> > On 25 Jan 2022, at 6:19 pm, Dirk Trossen <> wrote:
> >
> > All,
> >
> > Thanks for the great discussion, following our side meeting at IETF 112, so far.
> >
> > I wanted to turn the discussion to a key question which not only arose in the side meeting already but also in the discussions since, namely “what is an address anyway?”.
> >
> In this world of NATs it seems that we treat addresses as no more than temporary ephemeral session tokens and we've passed all the heavy lifting of service identification over to the name system. These days you and I could be accessing the same service yet we could b e using entirely different addresses to do so. Or I could be accessing the same service at different times, and again be using different addresses each time. I find it somewhat ironic that we see increasing moves to pull in IP addresses as part of the set of personal information in some regulatory regimes, yet what the larger network sees of end clients is a temporary NAT binding to a public address that may be shared by hundreds if not thousands of others.
> And IPv6’s use of privacy addressing achieves a similar outcome in a different way. And QUIC’s use of the session token inside the encrypted envelope even makes the binding of an address to a single session fluid, as the same QUIC session can be address agile on the client side.
> So perhaps an address these days is just an ephemeral transport token and really has little more in the way of semantic intent.


That might be true for QUIC, but not for TCP. Each TCP endpoint
requires stable addresses for the lifetime of the connection since the
addresses are part of the four-tuple identifying the connection. While
the addresses at each end point of a connection may differ, they must
be consistent for the lifetime of the connection at both endpoints.
That's where NAT breaks things, if NAT state is evicted or lost TCP
connections routed through NAT are no longer viable, hence that's why
it's correct to say that NAT breaks the end to end model. TCP
properties also makes it difficult to change the addresses of TCP
connections on the fly for privacy, but giving each connection it's
own unique IP address is potentially feasible since there are no
necessary protocol requirements for consistent addressing between
different connections.


> Geoff
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list