Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses for the network

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Thu, 23 January 2020 14:08 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 EC4AD120096 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 06:08:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 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, 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 RLZijexWs-fk for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 06:08:49 -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 C1207120025 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 06:08:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.100.103] (unknown [186.183.3.105]) (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 11FF586202; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 15:08:44 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses for the network
To: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>, Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
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> <DE7B0688-230F-4A5C-8E24-9EAED9FD9FEB@puck.nether.net>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <d607cc77-0a98-8319-9f0e-3f8d4a86e6c2@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 11:08:15 -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: <DE7B0688-230F-4A5C-8E24-9EAED9FD9FEB@puck.nether.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/XEf5jCMEZ09Pe-hIxhHJZmVjbwo>
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 14:08:50 -0000

On 23/1/20 10:37, Jared Mauch wrote:
> 
> 
>> 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).

FWIW, rfc4941bis is a revision of RFC4941, to address existing 
flaws/shortcomings. -- i.e., we're *not* introducing temporary addresses.

As noted, there are networks that wouldn't fancy temporary addresses, 
but then:

* SLAAC is not about managed configuration, but more about anarchy
   in this respect (for better or worse)

* We have a BCP supporting the use of multiple addresses: RFC7934

* Attempts to suggest policy in slaac have been shot down
  (draft-gont-6man-managing-slaac-policy)

* DHCPv6 support is not required, and in fact we seem to do our best to
   trash DHCPv6 and borrow cool DHCPv6 features into slaac as much as
   possible -- which doesn't help the situation.

So... while I sympathize with what you describe (for instance, I was an 
author of draft-gont-6man-managing-slaac-policy), I think what you're 
arguing has more to do with slaac itself, than with rfc4931.

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