Re: Ephemeral addressing [was Re: 64share v2] Thu, 12 November 2020 12:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43DE53A08C5 for <>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 04:25:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pr47W1RKba6t for <>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 04:25:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA26A3A0965 for <>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 04:25:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BBC414E11B3B; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 12:25:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D43D43E0F7B; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 13:25:53 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Subject: Re: Ephemeral addressing [was Re: 64share v2]
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 13:25:53 +0100
Cc: 6man WG <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Philip Homburg <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
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: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 12:26:05 -0000


>> You seem to be making an argument for why everyone else should
>> deploy IPv6.  Which isn't my point. My point was that IPv6 with
>> ephemeral addressing gives equal or less benefit to the end-user
>> than existing IPv4.  And no, there is little indication that we
>> cannot make the IPv4 Internet work forever. If we must.
> It seems to be that the industry thought that they could make IPv4 work
> forever. But in reality there was no plan. Life behind a CGN is very limiting.

Not too dissimilar to IPv6 with ephemeral addressing (today).
Ref 7010 gaps.

> At the same time, our attempts to provide stable addresses have failed. Mobile
> IP never got tracktion. The same applies to LISP. There is SHIM6. Now
> we have OMNI.
> Yes, if you really want statics addresses, you get a PA, find an ISP who is
> willing to announce your prefix and done.

PI. But anyway.
We must ensure IPv6 work better than IPv4.
There is something to be said for IPv4's use of private addresses. Unfortunately. We can't make the IPv6 user experience worse.

> For everybody else, prefixes change.
>>> When each link has its own /64 then on wifi each time a device connects it
>>> will get a different address (unless 802.1X is used with radius to assign a
>>> static prefix to an account).
>> Then you didn't understand that proposal.
> I think I do. Your proposal talks about wireless
> "Is a wireless network a hub and spoke network?" but in reality
> it considers only a static wired ethernet.
> In my experience, computers that are permantly attached to a wired ethernet are
> servers. Servers tend to get static addresses. I'm not aware of serious
> issues of assigning address to servers, or routing traffic to them.
> In multi-tenant sitations, vlans are used to separate traffic.
> Where we do have issues is with ND multicast on wireless, which could be
> solved by treating the wireless as a series of point-to-point links. 
> However, there is no such thing as a stable 'Virtual-P2PEthernet0' in wireless
> unless explicitly created using 802.1X.

There's nothing stopping the address assignment mechanism in p2p ethernet to give the same address back to the same user. So p2p ethernet even with "dynamic" interfaces can provide stable addressing.

>>> So it not clear to me why you are complaining about shortlived addresses.
>> I'm all in favour of making renumbering work. Even to the extent
>> of ephemeral addressing.  But glossing over the problem and pretending
>> that it is a solved problem, is quite unfair.  Have a look at the
>> existing work on this. E.g. RFC7010.
> 6man works at the network layer. So we should take a look at the network
> layer problems described in RFC 7010 Section 5. Other groups can work
> on transport or applications.

Sure. And as I said we should work on this, in collaboration with the other IETF areas.
My point was with regards to Cameron's proposal that we cannot deploy a PD mechanism today, that inhernetly does ephemeral addressing. There just are too many issues with that, and will lead to a bad user experience.