Re: [rtcweb] Transports: RFC 4941 support?

[Dan Wing <[e-mail]>]

On Mar 20, 2014, at 1:56 PM, Ted Hardie <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Dan Wing <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Mar 20, 2014, at 9:34 AM, Justin Uberti <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> So perhaps:
>>    "An RTCWEB implementation SHOULD prefer to use temporary addresses [RFC4941] where host and network policy permit [RFC6724]."
>> ?
>> 
>> I think it needs to be stronger than that - something like 
>> "where host and network policy permit, RTCWEB implementations SHOULD gather IPv6 temporary addresses and SHOULD NOT gather non-temporary addresses".
>> 
>> Preferring to use temporary addresses is probably not sufficient to prevent linkage, since you will have connectivity checks from the non-temporary addresses. (i.e. an eavesdropper listening over an extended period of time could determine calls are from the same endpoint)
> 
> Agreed.  I like your suggested wording.
> 
> -d
> 
> 
> 
> So, I note that in this case where a non-temporary IPv6 address is present and  no temporary IPv6 address is present, this appears to push IPv6 out of the gathered list completely.  If I have that right, then my view as an individual is that this is the wrong result.  It will either force the use of IPv4 addresses which are just as linkable as IPv6 non-temporary addresses or rely on NATs to get the non-linkability (and provide us all the other subtle joys of NAT). 
> 
> As a friendly amendment, may I suggest "Where both non-temporary and temporary addresses are present and host and network policy permit, RTCWEB implementations SHOULD gather IPv6 temporary addresses and SHOULD NOT gather non-temporary addresses"?
> 
> I also confess to a suspicion that Harald's view is the most sensible--having a separate policy for this application either won't happen or doesn't make much sense. 

Ok, so preface your suggested sentence with,

  “WebRTC applications are encouraged to follow IPv6 Socket API for Source Address Selection [RFC5014] with regards to IPv6 temporary addresses, specifically <insert your sentence>.”

It’s not that WebRTC is trying to do something unique here — we just want this done, and not just hope an implementor stumbles into the right IETF document explaining temporary IPv6 addresses.

-d



> But if we have one, I'd prefer one that doesn't shove IPv6 out the door completely if the host doesn't use temporary addresses.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Ted