Re: rfc4941bis: temporary addresses as "outgoing-only"?

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 10/2/20 17:46, Mark Smith wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2020, 03:13 Fernando Gont, <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     Folks,
> 
>     Since we are at it, I wonder if rfc4941bis should say anything about the
>     use of temporary addresses for incoming connections. (see
>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-6man-address-usage-recommendations-04#section-4.3).
>     (e.g., "an implementation MAY....")
> 
>     Particularly for connection-oriented protocols, hosts that prevent
>     incoming connections on temporary addresses reduce exposure even when
>     their temporary addresses become "exposed" by outgoing sessions.
> 
>     i.e., if the model is that temporary addresses are employed for outgoing
>     connections, unless a host uses temporary-only, there's no reason to
>     receive incoming connections on temporary addresses. (e.g., browsing the
>     web or sending email should not be an invitation for folks to e.g.
>     port-scan you).
> 
> 
> This would prevent peer-to-peer connections between end-user devices, as 
> it means devices become clients only, and they therefore cannot provide 
> a temporary server/service.
> 
> So, for example, ad hoc file transfer applications like AirDrop couldn't 
> work on a temporary address only and client-only end-user device.

Maybe one would expect that if you're doing temp-only, you wouldn't 
enforce this policy?

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492