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

[Mark Smith <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 at 16:38, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On 11/2/20 02:18, Mark Smith wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 at 15:32, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 10/2/20 19:17, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >>> On 11-Feb-20 09:46, 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.
> >>>
> >>> If a node has a stable address as well as a temporary address, that isn't the case.
> >>
> >> That's what I had in mind.
> >>
> >
> > So if we want to support adhoc peer-to-peer file transfers between
> > e.g. smartphones via NFC/Bluetooth/Adhoc Wifi, then stable addresses
> > are required, even if the file transfer takes say 30 seconds, well
> > within the valid lifetime of the RFC4291bis temporary addresses?
>
> I see your point. And if one were to implement this policy, yes, stable
> addresses would be required.
>
> That said, it is clear to me that this is out of scope for this document
> (I just wanted to check with the group).

Yes, I agree out of scope.

I think we want to restrict this document to temporary addresses and
what we expect to work when only temporary addresses are used or
available. That's naturally bounded by the properties of the temporary
addresses, which is why for example, connections that are longer lived
than the valid lifetime of the temporary address are going to break
and are expected to break.

Regards,
Mark.


> Once again, if we had
> appropriate APIs, applying this sort of policy host-wide wouldn't even
> make sense.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: [e-mail]
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
>
>
>
>