Subject: [Taps] IPv6 address usage

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 16:58:14 +0000

Folks,

Based on the feedback received today, I have split our document
<https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gont-taps-address-usage-problem-statement-00.txt>
into this two documents:

* Problem statement with respect to limitations of the Sockets API:
<https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-gont-taps-sockets-api-limitations-00.txt>

* Analysis of IPv6 address properties:
<https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gont-taps-address-analysis-00.txt>

Your feedback will be appreciated. We'd also appreciate guidance on how
to move forward. :-)

Thanks!

Best regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

---

From: Erik Kline <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 10:47:56 -0700

> <https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-gont-taps-sockets-api-limitations-00.txt>

My observation of:

       ...  For
   example, a privacy-sensitive application might want that each
   outgoing communication instance employs a new, single-use IPv6
   address, or to employ a new reusable address that is not employed or
   reusable by any other application on the host.

is that it's just not a problem of selecting an address, but also the
inability to request that the system /form/ such address for its use
(selecting that address for use would come in a subsequent step).

> <https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gont-taps-address-analysis-00.txt>

WRT "4.3.  Usage Type Considerations", I've been wanting to have an
API for apps to request the formation of addresses exclusively for
their own use (i.e. port 80 and 443 aren't shared with other system
services).  This could be useful for processes that control and spin
up VMs as well.

I've jotted down some notes in an embryonic draft
(https://github.com/ekline/draft-v6addrs-api/blob/master/draft.txt),
but they're not yet very well thought through.

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 17:55:04 +0000

Hello, Erik,

> (selecting that address for use would come in a subsequent step).

Yep, that's what we meant. We'll clarify this in the next rev.

> services).

Yes, this use case (at least separating surfing from everything else is
ne we had in mind).

>  This could be useful for processes that control and spin
> up VMs as well.
> 

I will take a look.

Thanks!

Best regards,