[v6ops] Re-evaluating RFC7934 (was: Re: Implementation Status of PREF64)

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Tue, 28 September 2021 09:50 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF6483A26AB; Tue, 28 Sep 2021 02:50:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 I_RhjF3a5wg0; Tue, 28 Sep 2021 02:50:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A95073A26AA; Tue, 28 Sep 2021 02:49:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Received: from cupcake.local (089-101-195156.ntlworld.ie [89.101.195.156] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.17.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 18S9ntKQ049140 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 28 Sep 2021 10:49:55 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host 089-101-195156.ntlworld.ie [89.101.195.156] (may be forged) claimed to be cupcake.local
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <4527b90f-ed82-287c-29a9-8eb7f9079959@foobar.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2021 10:49:53 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.16; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.49
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/XDpXyn_Nt0m8nv7CErumDcwV0S4>
Subject: [v6ops] Re-evaluating RFC7934 (was: Re: Implementation Status of PREF64)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2021 09:50:06 -0000

Lorenzo Colitti wrote on 28/09/2021 06:21:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 1:54 PM Owen DeLong <owen=40delong.com@dmarc.ietf.org>  wrote:
>     Sometimes the network administrator doesn’t want the host using
>     multiple IP addresses for a variety of reasons.
> 
> Ok, but that's also harmful for a variety of reasons, and for general 
> purpose devices, it's not recommended by the IETF. That's exactly what 
> RFC 7934 is about - explaining why it's harmful.

Why are we having this discussion?  DHCPv6 support IA_TA.

Separately, it would probably also be useful to re-open discussion about 
the rationales provided in rfc7934 sections 3 and 4, because a number of 
the arguments presented are either stale, irrelevant to general purpose 
networking or entirely spurious - particularly the notion of "privacy 
addressing", in the sense that it gives the false impression that 
switching IP addresses increases privacy in any true sense.

Nick