Re: [rtcweb] Transports: RFC 4941 support?

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 21 March 2014 16:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ACB11A046A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:07:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 iPk6SYj79XjN for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:07:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x229.google.com (mail-ie0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 006E51A03FD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:07:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f169.google.com with SMTP id to1so2669906ieb.14 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=mwVAhKtHv+kyBVu43E93tOZxCgLaFZoxR9qdY5pyqPk=; b=D85t3aTWqgANpHE+xZO8l1vLht+B0hee6ckP/YCTA/D83fMlvho8MzRgd/DwV7a7qM F3yABpSU8neURcHWx5rU7Mf8Ac7hMjgmqZ//T3KkhL5+7Rrw/jQeTUUcRukdU9YFIh7O /a5EH83JiTxbCgluJHO8SoYiOKbwvVMEvZd04UBjpPQXmR+wkniw0aG/rPjCJILB0cO6 lRCeLjqMUe6pRR8xj1Wly77UHzsFONLvluBfa1FyAaXMiiP3ZuAIi4uJg0TTp1hmPZ+r JIZZ/ReUH5zsdAoX57BGSyZOY9t1369tg+f8iO7H0jRD1BIqKmyylfcVnkU7yDHLlje3 mZug==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.56.109 with SMTP id z13mr3525576igp.6.1395418053611; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:07:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.237.206 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:07:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxv5xHknbsPCYpysvo7CeA7oKFu+Yy7QJbmVd6s1UyLr7A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOJ7v-0Hw0NFs_avsB2Z8do21BCws2LRZSeSh6HP0t455SPXyw@mail.gmail.com> <B6836FFA-867A-4CBF-9855-D265425EC5E1@cisco.com> <CAOqqYVE=i2L7FxGgKuV0DVaaxYOPnxzSEbDoq0_4Tqapna575g@mail.gmail.com> <CD747481-EBDA-4FFC-A31D-618E6E217420@cisco.com> <5329B617.2070001@alvestrand.no> <17885A74-50A3-49E3-8C54-E53C55019C73@cisco.com> <CAOJ7v-0Dx4Owam7NzXqs6ALPi+ps9gKbmFK9=Zu5eBr9yHYgKg@mail.gmail.com> <444DE75E-BF07-4C6F-91B1-CF57DC67FBA3@cisco.com> <CA+9kkMD5jG-w7ahHLsUX9QMSkSMArS4Wz7ZYOucAZWkrmz5YsQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-1JZG547KkiWeG=3zfCFk6WVzm+r9kF0MTg3SQynHMJdg@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxvKJRMYGYDRNKvmdxmsc35B16P4-+73E+o85-re42yrzw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-2hMHJUGhKKocvu5Ld9_cr+duSbJ=+rEucUaAmjiooZTA@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxv5xHknbsPCYpysvo7CeA7oKFu+Yy7QJbmVd6s1UyLr7A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:07:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMBQ=Otxq0vNgKQEoY6UmrEd73625vvBMr45h7MvJFS+Pw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158aa1266176e04f520159b
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/nIMSbz6tTbY8tbAyzCkKwMml2uA
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Transports: RFC 4941 support?
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 16:07:46 -0000

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>wrote;wrote:
>>>
>>>> Your take is what I had in mind. Basically a ruleset like this:
>>>>
>>>>  gather_ipv4_addresses();
>>>>  if (has_ipv6) {
>>>>   if (has_temporary_addresses && temporaries_not_forbidden_by_policy) {
>>>>     gather_temporary_ipv6_addresses();
>>>>   } else {
>>>>     gather_non_temporary_ipv6_addresses();
>>>>  }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>  What should be done when temporary enabled only on some of the network
>>> interfaces of the device, i.e. if, for instance, WiFI interface has only
>>> non temp ipv6 address and LTE has both temp and permanent address present?
>>>
>>>
>> Is this a real-world problem? As I understand it, temporary addresses are
>> assigned by the host, so you either support them or you don't.
>>
>
> On Linux you can enable temporary addresses per interface, so it is
> possible.
>
> The whole problem (with using temp or permanent addresses) is a bit
> imaginary since under most common client setups you only see temporary
> addresses. Permanent IPv6 addresses show up only on servers or if
> specifically configured on the host.
>

It's actually not imaginary in enterprise contexts, as there are shops
that disable temporary addresses to make tracking or other security
activities easier.  Not my favorite reasoning, personally, but there you go.

Ted





> _____________
> Roman Shpount
>
>