IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses for the network

Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> Thu, 23 January 2020 13:37 UTC

Return-Path: <jared@puck.nether.net>
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 6AE3112004A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 05:37:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 QpOGqEIYPyFi for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 05:37:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from puck.nether.net (puck.nether.net [IPv6:2001:418:3f4::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DAF31200B9 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 05:37:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.0.129] (c-68-32-79-179.hsd1.mi.comcast.net [68.32.79.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by puck.nether.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E695F5401DC; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 08:37:19 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.40.2.2.4\))
Subject: Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses for the network
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <8D5610EA-49D3-483E-BB7A-67D67BC89346@jisc.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 08:37:19 -0500
Cc: "otroan@employees.org" <otroan@employees.org>, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DE7B0688-230F-4A5C-8E24-9EAED9FD9FEB@puck.nether.net>
References: <03C832CE-7282-4320-BF1B-4CB7167FE6BE@employees.org> <MN2PR11MB3565330989D411525D30B90DD80F0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <80207E17-AE8E-4D19-B516-D2E6AB70721E@employees.org> <8D5610EA-49D3-483E-BB7A-67D67BC89346@jisc.ac.uk>
To: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.40.2.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/P72od_vH3AyMl6-NU3MHaokTHt8>
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, 23 Jan 2020 13:37:23 -0000


> On Jan 23, 2020, at 8:32 AM, Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> The problem statement section in 4941bis is all about user privacy, no mention of operational / management complexity, or other “general problems” that SLAAC has.  It seems there are unstated problems here :)


I would +1 this here.

I would also generally question if rotating IPs is a adequate privacy protector considering there are other ways to identify users that are being (broadly) employed today.

The complexity that this introduces into networks for operational debugging (provider: what’s your IP address so I can debug? User: Well here’s the 20 on the host because I have limited lifetime privacy addresses, and I don’t know what outbound one it’s using for this connection.  Provider: What’s your IP address so I can debug?  Actually, can you just turn off v6 so I can debug your problem?  User: sure, I just want it fixed).

- Jared

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email