IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Are IPv6 auto-configured addresses transient?

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 19 October 2009 00:10 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 A536E3A68B5 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 ZHKQItKu6Yrk for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ew0-f208.google.com (mail-ew0-f208.google.com [209.85.219.208]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4D9C3A689D for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:10:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ewy4 with SMTP id 4so1043574ewy.37 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:10:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=85A5ggBvXUHTN09uHZ7LoEsPHpnIw5vvkGp8g7RZfYA=; b=cvSYP1X3URi3iLeJ498+svmRRJow2JBae7pIVVC07t4bVqYH4+k2+hDQFO4Bksc9wc zoND6Sw/4D1EkjkLUj7aA5+mdgmM+Osa9em1TtMo0dNlDBv9xavHfUng1/JtCghumLb8 2sUjZurstV82hjS6XDw052jni1jI6K1J/Gkk8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=dUO+we2LdQmP1rTH1Ae/WK04AVZYCo6DESfJO9dSrg4hghC5QINiDrvLOk59BBJn+7 ubLEW9KEnIEE9uLf9zgrQCBI4UyP03uMIl3dwziWzDkVmeGf3HOXH4i8DKLii62iJj32 Ae0xCsu2OEKGUJGYNwUzo9LcuxZ7yQGawUvPg=
Received: by 10.216.87.75 with SMTP id x53mr1440733wee.13.1255911049486; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:10:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?10.1.1.4? ([121.98.142.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t2sm12095523gve.12.2009.10.18.17.10.44 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:10:48 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4ADBAE7B.6070005@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:10:35 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Are IPv6 auto-configured addresses transient?
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> <B00EDD615E3C5344B0FFCBA910CF7E1D084DF2BB@xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <B00EDD615E3C5344B0FFCBA910CF7E1D084DF2BB@xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, 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: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 00:10:46 -0000

Hemant,

On 2009-10-19 11:34, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
...
>> 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.

Please come to the GROBJ BOF in Hiroshima. Basically, I would
argue that all addresses have to be regarded in some sense
as transient (and that most applications are defective in this
respect). It's particularly acute, as Brian H said, in the
case of referrals.

http://tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/BifIETF76

  Brian Carpenter

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email