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

Brian E Carpenter <> Tue, 11 February 2020 21:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9388212083A for <>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:07:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3XIXNt13IHrA for <>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:07:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A555812006F for <>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:07:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id dw13so1891448pjb.4 for <>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:07:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=b622YlOyA53oCnvj+5C/f++mihJ7WQAo8n9zsc5IIJ8=; b=HqHS9vFt4soWeU8DtA0gn0PRgFbPYPAavnzFt1B+4asJcYtPe/Y7orbu90GJp5GmYJ KLTAp25IJNSLl4qM+kjtV74vEzkMPmYCTjXCfCMJGGUbu3VySGQPCD03eOPMBU9iAJVx UKia+59/Gu9pTBVlHSAOxZtjTBj4X9CdQWVnloz/6qfbcONCjl7ClDT8rdo6Tk7+G4p9 Xq53CnWzcQFq2K4GwRCBmbj+OeAzvUW56k4ghYSnKPdTmRuR5q4CBrrIa09rKPfbeDPH 3uyuKXpjm/ufgWWNaVTfs4mAlOHf5LXe0xPhwYNIVSexg7B+V8ShcxHP9kGLH6DRt/dI Rb6g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=b622YlOyA53oCnvj+5C/f++mihJ7WQAo8n9zsc5IIJ8=; b=dqhI5aPefHYaDL84cNHpPd0GKXay5u6UnSyEm7b8xf4f9C2ZOBNnZpRUYay1Q+yafO PnIr1Zsb20hhPGWS8zceXSpG9wdhkCUO8g9dHR1YyIX5xFw/EtDKEZ+n/HWMjTmZWvbA ROWpYovyVNEO+HAOln9zHtmh2+9LqWgpcRi70eZGU1wTdmriki92SLcabs7fIm0vrCRm kXJEQ6sprGy0/jm7lUEXDs50wYl5QVaufj6kBuI5GrkjpH4eXP9JRE7AOU9KRIF3TnOZ Ozh96pZijQKm+yjd7JzwY74IwQ64wMqJ8iV0EgBvDIX/ytj259a+SAF+a5O1PHPUDUjo Mkyw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWoMJmmCaxNo/CkQz5kr3vcZHv+yr9qyC5W9AlCkSSS4S4Q+UDg xDD+xrYd84IDWlQUfTp2X7J+aRJp
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxrI0unewuzojQ2EAO3QBHaR8fby5qJ4+t0CEd2WDYAY+k/JExMOebfxwtbtxPL+L8UTqd0cA==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:d216:: with SMTP id t22mr4903833ply.150.1581455272490; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:07:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id gx2sm4262365pjb.18.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:07:51 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: rfc4941bis: temporary addresses as "outgoing-only"?
To: Fernando Gont <>, Mark Smith <>
Cc: 6MAN <>
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 10:07:47 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 21:07:57 -0000

On 11-Feb-20 16:44, Fernando Gont 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, < <>> wrote:
>>>      Folks,
>>>      Since we are at it, I wonder if rfc4941bis should say anything about the
>>>      use of temporary addresses for incoming connections. (see
>>>      (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.
>> However, I think it is rather out of scope for 6man to regulate this point. What might be good, but is also probably out of scope,
>> is a socket option to allow/disallow incoming connections to temp addresses, and a socket error code if they are disallowed and an upper layer tries to bind a socket to a temp address.
> The thing here is that, unless the address has been generated upon 
> request of an app (something not possible at the time of this writing), 
> apps share addresses and thus no app has authority over any address...

Technically, yes, but if the socket option required root privilege it could OK. Anyway it's part of a broader problem, not part of 4941bis, IMHO.