Subject: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-05.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 09:19:11 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Operations of the IETF.

        Title           : Host address availability recommendations
        Authors         : Lorenzo Colitti
                          Vint Cerf
                          Stuart Cheshire
                          David Schinazi
	Filename        : draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-05.txt
	Pages           : 14
	Date            : 2016-02-12

Abstract:
   This document recommends that networks provide general-purpose end
   hosts with multiple global IPv6 addresses when they attach, and
   describes the benefits of and the options for doing so.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-05

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-05

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Lorenzo Colitti <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 18:25:19 +0100

>         Filename        : draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-05.txt

New in this version:

   1. Placed much less emphasis on DHCPv6 PD. It was never the intention to
   recommend DHCPv6 PD only; the intention was to recommend address
   provisioning mechanisms that provide plenty of addresses (e.g., by
   providing a prefix). However, some WG participants believed that that was
   the intent. The draft now recommends either "methods that allow the host to
   obtain more addresses autonomously" or a dedicated /64 per host, where the
   dedicated /64 per host can be obtained in several ways.
   2. Mention SLAAC with a dedicated /64 for every host as a way of
   providing plenty of addresses via SLAAC with simpler tracking than shared
   SLAAC.
   3. Slightly reworded the section on address tracking.

Cheers,
Lorenzo

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 07:46:41 +1300

On 13/02/2016 06:25, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>    recommend DHCPv6 PD only; 

And don't overlook that draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile is in IETF Last Call
for another 2 days, including a strong recommendation against using IA_PD.

   Brian

>    the intention was to recommend address
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 18:55:22 +0000

Hi Brian,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: v6ops [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 10:47 AM
> To: Lorenzo Colitti; [email-masked] WG
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-05.txt
> 

The abstract says:

   "Some DHCP options carry unique identifiers.  These identifiers can
   enable device tracking even if the device administrator takes care of
   randomizing other potential identifications like link-layer addresses
   or IPv6 addresses.  The anonymity profile is designed for clients
   that wish to remain anonymous to the visited network."

So, it appears to be only about clients that wish to remain anonymous.
But, in certain use cases (airplanes under air traffic control, enterprise
mobile device users, etc.) device tracking is very important. and IA_PD
is applicable.

Thanks - Fred
[email-masked]

---

From: Lorenzo Colitti <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 08:56:02 +0100

> for another 2 days, including a strong recommendation against using IA_PD.

Thanks for pointing that out (twice now). I commented on that thread. It
seems spurious to recommend against DHCPv6 PD since its anonymity
properties are basically the same as IA_NA.