IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Are we competitive?

Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Fri, 19 August 2022 22:58 UTC

Return-Path: <fernando@gont.com.ar>
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 23E59C1522B5 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 15:58:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bVYSIeaJPdpE for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 15:57:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4220C1522A7 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 15:57:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPV6:2800:810:464:f13:5854:a2c0:4697:e313] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:f13:5854:a2c0:4697:e313]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E0722280694; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 19:57:46 -0300 (-03)
Message-ID: <bc72f01f-5c24-b738-5bab-5c48282e0523@gont.com.ar>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 19:57:43 -0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>, "Soni They/Them L." <fakedme+ipv6@gmail.com>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <3f138b03-940a-e83a-6c6e-6039506b6e4b@gont.com.ar> <10f89b7cbe784881bd22b4af81577aa6@huawei.com> <CAN-Dau0nz0TouDnz5pei0MCmTzSbP8q+gHLx1m0sxX0hsuPX3w@mail.gmail.com> <b9f33aa499b043bb90ff926731db9739@huawei.com> <b885bdd4-d837-1eda-9614-36c76190d920@gont.com.ar> <a6975472445f49018abab153fa61b399@huawei.com> <YvoaJ+IJdl/VXYLj@Space.Net> <1cdf7569a11d43e2b4fdd8675b657e42@huawei.com> <YvoilaQfj40uYI5X@Space.Net> <2e465d49-7636-1a09-0b0a-1616c3840bb8@gmail.com> <YvolSM4c05Hu2YAn@Space.Net> <3ea43ae8-a88e-8d44-1b21-7b66f3924980@gmail.com> <9B8691E8-AD21-4A87-8735-DEBE4E0CDCED@gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
In-Reply-To: <9B8691E8-AD21-4A87-8735-DEBE4E0CDCED@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/ZK_zV9m7WOd05NzTxeEn3x9aCKg>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Are we competitive?
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 22:58:00 -0000

Hi, Fred,

On 19/8/22 16:09, Fred Baker wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Aug 15, 2022, at 9:07 AM, Soni They/Them L.
>> <fakedme+ipv6@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> We do not like it when IPv6 enables cross-website tracking in spite
>> of browser-based protections, including the ability to separately
>> identify household/community participants, which would be entirely
>> avoidable if the IPv6 stack had full built-in support for ephemeral
>> addresses and browsers used them per-tab or so.
> 
> 
> I'm going to ask the obvious question. What is the difference between
> an "ephemeral" address and a "temporary" address? I think you're
> asking for a temporary address that is used for a specific purpose (a
> tab, a tcp session, whatever) and then forgotten.

Answer is in Section 4.4 of 
draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-addressing-considerations-02: 
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-addressing-considerations-02.html#name-address-stability-considera 
;-)

TL;DR; They are addresses that are used by a single application (e.g., a 
web broswer) or even a single site or application inside the browser. 
Otherwise, temporary addresses would still allow correlation while the 
same address is in use (while the address is preferred).

Strictly speaking, temporary addresses *are* ephemeral (i.e., they are 
certainly not constant or stable). But there are cases where you'd 
probably want an application to be able to request a 
single/exclusive-use address.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar
PGP Fingerprint: 7F7F 686D 8AC9 3319 EEAD C1C8 D1D5 4B94 E301 6F01

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email