Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses for the network

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 7:37 AM Jared Mauch <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> > On Jan 23, 2020, at 8:32 AM, Tim Chown <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > The problem statement section in 4941bis is all about user privacy, no
> mention of operational / management complexity, or other “general problems”
> that SLAAC has.  It seems there are unstated problems here :)
>
>
> I would +1 this here.
>
> I would also generally question if rotating IPs is a adequate privacy
> protector considering there are other ways to identify users that are being
> (broadly) employed today.
>
> The complexity that this introduces into networks for operational
> debugging (provider: what’s your IP address so I can debug? User: Well
> here’s the 20 on the host because I have limited lifetime privacy
> addresses, and I don’t know what outbound one it’s using for this
> connection.  Provider: What’s your IP address so I can debug?  Actually,
> can you just turn off v6 so I can debug your problem?  User: sure, I just
> want it fixed).
>
> - Jared
>

First, the idea of changing addresses is not a new one, this is
RFC4941bis or version 3 of this idea.  Second, if you read the draft it
discusses that this can complicate troubleshooting and the trade-off may
not be worth it in all cases.

Thanks.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================