IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Are IPv6 auto-configured addresses transient?

"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com> Sun, 18 October 2009 22:34 UTC

Return-Path: <shemant@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C7143A6986 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.932
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.333, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fpoZkmqTqOxa for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D65B3A68E3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; l=2085; q=dns/txt; s=sjiport06001; t=1255905263; x=1257114863; h=from:sender:reply-to:subject:date:message-id:to:cc: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-id: content-description:resent-date:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-to:resent-cc:resent-message-id:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:list-owner:list-archive; z=From:=20"Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)"=20<shemant@cisco.co m>|Subject:=20RE:=20Are=20IPv6=20auto-configured=20addres ses=20transient?|Date:=20Sun,=2018=20Oct=202009=2018:34:1 9=20-0400|Message-ID:=20<B00EDD615E3C5344B0FFCBA910CF7E1D 084DF2BB@xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com>|To:=20"Christopher =20Morrow"=20<christopher.morrow@gmail.com>|Cc:=20"Brian =20Haberman"=20<brian@innovationslab.net>,=0D=0A=20=20=20 =20=20=20=20=20"Margaret=20Wasserman"=20<mrw@sandstorm.ne t>,=20<ipv6@ietf.org>|MIME-Version:=201.0 |Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted-printable |In-Reply-To:=20<75cb24520910181401i7f34c1a3y9f49ee472be2 31d1@mail.gmail.com>|References:=20<5988ed3c0910070925iaa 3b136jd500d30037946a3a@mail.gmail.com>=20<1C461E2E-C218-4 2EF-BC23-D8B1B4389C40@sandstorm.net>=20<4AD8AEDC.2000800@ innovationslab.net>=20<B00EDD615E3C5344B0FFCBA910CF7E1D08 4DF2A3@xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com>=20<75cb24520910181401i 7f34c1a3y9f49ee472be231d1@mail.gmail.com>; bh=P57BO/ye/8v3voUbMiYhp7/LzgG7kfajFTc5EOTTHs8=; b=WdKcr8WFhJLnzA/r7QoMTbfiD23o07Wwd237xGLVnZgje/3uKvW/vPXH JIelcA1Ajht8k9YPncRbZrVxesNqVafodstV5X2hfraafoo3gtYAzyc6h q8vYLaLle4ovjGiRoR4DMm//F6jEVC9QSjy21y5d55IJwqnGDutSSv9hI 8=;
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-6.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAD4020qrR7Ht/2dsb2JhbADDAZY1hDEEgVs
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,582,1249257600"; d="scan'208";a="412183240"
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Oct 2009 22:34:22 +0000
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n9IMYMsO023466; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:34:22 GMT
Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:34:22 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: Are IPv6 auto-configured addresses transient?
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:34:19 -0400
Message-ID: <B00EDD615E3C5344B0FFCBA910CF7E1D084DF2BB@xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <75cb24520910181401i7f34c1a3y9f49ee472be231d1@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Are IPv6 auto-configured addresses transient?
Thread-Index: AcpQNilLsPYj+RVASFmSxueAsbgOmgAC75tw
References: <5988ed3c0910070925iaa3b136jd500d30037946a3a@mail.gmail.com> <1C461E2E-C218-42EF-BC23-D8B1B4389C40@sandstorm.net> <4AD8AEDC.2000800@innovationslab.net> <B00EDD615E3C5344B0FFCBA910CF7E1D084DF2A3@xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com> <75cb24520910181401i7f34c1a3y9f49ee472be231d1@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
To: Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Oct 2009 22:34:22.0433 (UTC) FILETIME=[23A1FD10:01CA5043]
Cc: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, ipv6@ietf.org, Margaret Wasserman <mrw@sandstorm.net>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:34:17 -0000

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Morrow [mailto:christopher.morrow@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 5:01 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Brian Haberman; Margaret Wasserman; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Are IPv6 auto-configured addresses transient?


>I have a long lived ssh session between two devices, both of which use
>enhanced privacy addresses that rotate hourly.

If the addresses rotate at the hour, then a callback function from the interface can call the app and report the change.  It's not even that an app has to track the interface IP address changes - the app just needs to register a callback to the interface ip address change processing function.  Even in v4 IP addresses can change by the hour and many v4 apps have been developed sensibly.

>(example provided)

>Note that in most cases the ip address stays live on the device as
>long as there's something actively using it... so its not really a
>problem, unless the entire subnet changes (upstream provider change
>for instance).

>> anything related to lifetimes of addresses.  On an IPv6 node, if
>> anything related to the addresses on a network interface changes, the
>> changes will affect the network interfaces the app is using.  Even in
>> IPv4, if an app is using an IP address of a network interface on the
>> node, the app tracks changes of the IP address on the network interface

>The app MAY track this info, it MAY also not :( sadly some people
>hardcode the ip address into the application, of course you can't fix
>that case.

Agreed.  Well, I state a simple coding mechanism above.  The apps have to do better now.  I think for such issues mentioned, some well-known proper coding practices exist. It up to BEHAVE to see what, if anything, needs specification here.  I am still not convinced a problem exists here for which the IETF has to do anything about.  I am definitely convinced on the referral IP address that Brian mentioned in that the referral needs some thought.

Thanks,

Hemant

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email