IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses for the network)

Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> Sun, 26 January 2020 11:56 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 522D0120019 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 03:56:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 A02MzCkdbfnD for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 03:56:11 -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 0FDC5120018 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 03:56:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.0.155] (c-68-32-79-179.hsd1.mi.comcast.net [68.32.79.179]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by puck.nether.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1D0FD54020B; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 06:56:09 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses for the network)
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <6f2a8e5a-a4f6-219b-d7c8-ba79ed257785@huitema.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2020 06:56:07 -0500
Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Message-Id: <233CE79D-B9BF-4335-8568-D178BD10CEAC@puck.nether.net>
References: <6f2a8e5a-a4f6-219b-d7c8-ba79ed257785@huitema.net>
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17C54)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/mYHM9BUEz3xg0PVm_vbl-oFz-bU>
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: Sun, 26 Jan 2020 11:56:13 -0000


> On Jan 26, 2020, at 12:41 AM, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net> wrote:
> 
> the importance of address privacy increases.

What you are saying is the cost to operate the network increases, sometimes to the point where the privacy makes the network unusable. This is the operational experience. 

It also means things like my ssh sessions can't last long enough to do large transfers as the address is rotated away. 

There is more to the internet than browser activity. The noise of NDP for all these addresses has a real cost. Some of the problems are documented in 6583. 

A network that doesn't work is not the goal but it will have the privacy you seem to be reaching for.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email