Re: Ephemeral addressing [was Re: 64share v2]

Philip Homburg <> Thu, 12 November 2020 11:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D18593A03C9 for <>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 03:55:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.622
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.276, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K8TZ8cT-SVBR for <>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 03:55:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E5103A02C1 for <>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 03:55:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost [::ffff:]) by with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #157) id m1kdBC6-0000ECC; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 12:55:14 +0100
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: Ephemeral addressing [was Re: 64share v2]
From: Philip Homburg <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <038A830C-E024-42C6-917E-E6FF57829A1C@employees.or g> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 12 Nov 2020 11:47:19 +0100 ." <>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 12:55:14 +0100
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 11:55:26 -0000

> You seem to be making an argument for why everyone else should
> deploy IPv6.  Which isn't my point. My point was that IPv6 with
> ephemeral addressing gives equal or less benefit to the end-user
> than existing IPv4.  And no, there is little indication that we
> cannot make the IPv4 Internet work forever. If we must.

It seems to be that the industry thought that they could make IPv4 work
forever. But in reality there was no plan. Life behind a CGN is very limiting.

At the same time, our attempts to provide stable addresses have failed. Mobile
IP never got tracktion. The same applies to LISP. There is SHIM6. Now
we have OMNI.

Yes, if you really want statics addresses, you get a PA, find an ISP who is
willing to announce your prefix and done.

For everybody else, prefixes change.

> > When each link has its own /64 then on wifi each time a device connects it
> > will get a different address (unless 802.1X is used with radius to assign a
> > static prefix to an account).
> Then you didn't understand that proposal.

I think I do. Your proposal talks about wireless
"Is a wireless network a hub and spoke network?" but in reality
it considers only a static wired ethernet.

In my experience, computers that are permantly attached to a wired ethernet are
servers. Servers tend to get static addresses. I'm not aware of serious
issues of assigning address to servers, or routing traffic to them.
In multi-tenant sitations, vlans are used to separate traffic.

Where we do have issues is with ND multicast on wireless, which could be
solved by treating the wireless as a series of point-to-point links. 
However, there is no such thing as a stable 'Virtual-P2PEthernet0' in wireless
unless explicitly created using 802.1X.

> > So it not clear to me why you are complaining about shortlived addresses.
> I'm all in favour of making renumbering work. Even to the extent
> of ephemeral addressing.  But glossing over the problem and pretending
> that it is a solved problem, is quite unfair.  Have a look at the
> existing work on this. E.g. RFC7010.

6man works at the network layer. So we should take a look at the network
layer problems described in RFC 7010 Section 5. Other groups can work
on transport or applications.