IETF Logo Mail Archive

Better APIs (was: Re: Address privacy)

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Thu, 30 January 2020 18:22 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AAF6120043 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 10:22:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id znm3Sv1mCZNp for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 10:22:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3EBE120020 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 10:22:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.100.103] (unknown [186.183.50.221]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AC4B486BD7; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 19:22:33 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Better APIs (was: Re: Address privacy)
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: otroan@employees.org, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <03C832CE-7282-4320-BF1B-4CB7167FE6BE@employees.org> <1962.1579823388@localhost> <f83ab037-9125-bb74-dbac-68850aeb1020@huitema.net> <CBB23ABE-A7A3-4208-873C-E47EE063E34B@fugue.com> <11855.1579980079@localhost> <CALx6S36V_VjaxhELYcsgDYLWsCkj20p6gtiY9T9Q=9-9Oibyjw@mail.gmail.com> <32626.1580060558@localhost> <CALx6S37prWACD0jv9c-XHD-JtPqZAcgeT2Ax0EZHkiQaDR4t=g@mail.gmail.com> <419b7c7a-e364-7951-5a44-6c39e1da65fb@joelhalpern.com> <CALx6S36802oDaEgojAPq2c6hM_s1BayidXPh1Sc6RZmZa9UHpQ@mail.gmail.com> <6c5ba72d-9289-90ba-a1c9-2307ed29a4da@foobar.org> <a98bf2ab-32e7-459b-14d2-5e0e1c65a229@si6networks.com> <CALx6S36J5TPnXJQyMW2NUbQV6KL_oqUQ01m+BEzBJ+xcHpmQWw@mail.gmail.com> <d763dc26-57bb-c67d-f727-617a6b52d813@foobar.org> <CALx6S36DsttXx-7UWL=iZkGuKG_yNKdADFB5zo87wu2coz8HcQ@mail.gmail.com> <C6E767BC-BB0F-4B47-8DEB-CD04A6EF7D8C@employees.org> <9f474839-7e6d- 59c6-1941-ebeca5825dab@si6networks.com> <26636.1580393559@dooku>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <a123c070-cc82-2553-23bb-f8c60082d02a@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 15:20:04 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <26636.1580393559@dooku>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/LoRd3xv5KJKNP9zryonv8X-QVrg>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 18:22:39 -0000

On 30/1/20 11:12, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
[..]
> 
> I think that we should not oversell the benefits, but that doesn't mean there
> are none. (I think that the benefits have been oversold within the IETF)
> 
> I'd like to see 6man look to better APIs for address selection.

Good grief. We did this: 
https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-gont-6man-address-usage-recommendations-04.txt

This work would have lead to the *real* issues for which some are 
blaming temporary addresses in this thread.

I presented it once in 6man, and was suggested it belonged elsewhere. I 
tried elsewhere (taps), but it seems they believe it belonged elsewhere.

So I guess the problem we are dealing with with be solved by someone, 
somewhere (someday? :-) ).

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email