Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses for the network

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 24/1/20 14:23, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> [e-mail] wrote:
>      >> The question of an address per transport connection is why would you do that?
>      >> In many IPv4 installations, the NAT box has state per flow. So having an IPv6
>      >> address per transport connection doesn't seem beyond what we can do.
> 
>      > On reason might be because the application uses the temporary address
>      > in a way that taints it.
>      > E.g. the address is used in a connection where the user is identified
>      > through authentication.
>      > That address is now tained from thew perspective of privacy, and should
>      > not be used for other connections.
> 
> And so the application would like to give a hint to throw away that address *NOW*?
> Or maybe the application would like to ask the OS for a *per-connection*
> temporary address?

FWIW, that's interesting, but seems to be out of scope for rfc4941bis. 
In fact, it is covered (to some extent) in: 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-6man-address-usage-recommendations

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [e-mail] || [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1