From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] Implement draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 03:04:29 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2999c2d5-77f2-c69f-7fab-d5b01b30a65f@si6networks.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200412222205.04cb37cc@hermes.lan>
On 13/4/20 02:22, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 07:44:58 -0300
> Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
>
>> Implement the upcoming rev of RFC4941 (IPv6 temporary addresses):
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis-09
>>
[...]
>>
>> temp_valid_lft - INTEGER
>> valid lifetime (in seconds) for temporary addresses.
>> - Default: 604800 (7 days)
>> + Default: 172800 (2 days)
>
> You can't change defaults for existing users without a really good
> argument.
The number of extra addresses you get when the Valid Lifetime is 7 days
tends to exacerbate the stress caused on network elements/devices. There
are references in the I-D.
Additionally, the motivation of temporary addresses is indeed privacy
and reduced exposure. With a default VL of 7 days, and address that
becomes revealed is reachable for one whole week. That's not very
"temporary" as the name would imply.
The only use case for a VL of 7 days could be some application that is
expecting to have long lived connections. But if you want to have a long
lived connections, you probably shouldn't be using a temporary address.
And even more in the era of mobile devices, I'd argue that general
applications should be prepared and robust to address changes (nodes
swaps wifi <-> 4G, etc.)
This is, of the top of my head, the reason why we decided to modify the
default valid lifetime in the upcoming revision of the standard.
Thoughts?
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-13 6:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-08 10:44 [PATCH net-next] Implement draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis Fernando Gont
2020-04-12 17:50 ` Jakub Kicinski
2020-04-13 5:22 ` Stephen Hemminger
2020-04-13 6:04 ` Fernando Gont [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2999c2d5-77f2-c69f-7fab-d5b01b30a65f@si6networks.com \
--to=fgont@si6networks.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).