IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default?

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Thu, 30 January 2020 22:03 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 6FBB11200F7 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 14:03:32 -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 88iehmKmIBAm for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 14:03:29 -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 2EF01120024 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 14:03:27 -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 4A9F986BD5; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 22:57:48 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default?
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <03C832CE-7282-4320-BF1B-4CB7167FE6BE@employees.org> <43D76C96-C16B-4BEB-B9B8-C68D53BCE63F@fugue.com> <fb5b8377-892d-2777-ef9b-4f9ddefa6c93@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr034_tu7ZoJ1FCfDYhNSN6igm-ZQyR4u3U+UDMr=huGOw@mail.gmail.com> <1af0b06d-f9d7-5ea1-27f3-b417eb9148fa@si6networks.com> <7606A049-318D-4526-917D-F2A801BF7050@cisco.com> <CAKD1Yr1d9kORFdoOJr22J_UDJ9hLPr6AQLyWuh7=bAQKa+aXGw@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB356588FC3E8A6410B725D159D80A0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAKD1Yr35meRGh_POo_2jrHA_oazO1xUOG5G_rx43xNLFYHQsMQ@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB356526F01CAE1CADEF8E4472D80A0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAKD1Yr0-rmyzz3y1d+pCpA0+tGuhSdjojaJovXUzVuyx6UdeLA@mail.gmail.com> <98179a48-8d86 -4673-6c82-fc0022988862@foobar.org> <F84FEFAF-1F78-47D4-B3E0-981DCFD0CB58@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr11_SSUkCBuQ3-h+eRg0LPZQdhe+h7f0YZy9TiyRWj6mw@mail.gmail.com> <BC310B79-A05D-4889-9CE9-E62823335E9B@gmail.com> <28094.1580406829@dooku>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <8f5e4142-5a1f-220b-7b0c-7a8c0df41f43@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 18:54:03 -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: <28094.1580406829@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/hTWe4I47BRiKdgNb_tgQct-3b20>
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 22:03:33 -0000

On 30/1/20 14:53, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>      > +1 on this. We can discuss whether a temporary address should have a
>      > limited lifetime or whether a given interface might have at most some
>      > number of temporary addresses at any given time, but to say that in the
>      > default (e.g., usual) case each system has zero seems like a bad idea.
> 
> I agree with what you said, and the way that you said it.
> 
> In particular, I think that it would be better to have a temporary address
> per user and/or threadish-pool (e.g. Chrome) and/or container, and keep this
> for a longer time.
> I think that if a host/network is going to support multiple temporary
> addresses, that they should be used in parallel and used for a long time.

The topic is much larger than rfc4941. Please see: 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-6man-address-usage-recommendations

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