On reflection I wanted to respond to this a bit more: I was responding to slide 9, and in particular the bullet point that says "The node Should not use public addresses".
When I initially read this, I interpreted "public addresses" with the meaning that they tend to have in IPv4 - which is to say addresses that aren't "private addresses". I wasn't sure what public addresses would mean for IPv6, since we have no private addresses in IPv6. But we used to have something very similar to private addresses in IPv6 called site locals. We deprecated them for good reasons, and my first impression of that slide was that it seemed to be advocating something like the concept of IPv4 private addresses in IPv6. So that's why I spoke up. Hosnieh clarified the slide by explaining that by using "public addresses" she meant addresses resolvable from DNS lookups. But then the idea that a node should not use "public addresses" is problematic for different reasons. There are many people (in IETF and elsewhere) who believe that applications should never use IP addresses directly or in referrals to other applications. This is often cited as if it were some architectural principle - in fact just last night, I actually had an AD state that to me as if it were a principle. I happen to disagree emphatically with that supposed principle, for many reasons, but I won't list those reasons here. For the moment it only matters that there is a widely held belief that all applications should only use names to refer to hosts or application endpoints. From that point-of-view, all hosts/nodes need to have names, so (by this definition) all hosts/nodes need to have public addresses. And the people who believe that applications should always use names to refer to hosts or application endpoints have a lot of influence on network protocol design choices. So a recommendation for hosts to only use addresses not listed in DNS can have the effect of making those hosts unable to support various applications. Bottom line: The decision about whether a node should use an address listed in DNS is not something that should be dictated entirely, or probably even mostly, by concerns about the privacy of addresses. I would also suggest that the privacy benefit from using addresses not listed in DNS is probably very small. But in order to evaluate that benefit, it would help to identify specific threats to privacy that are remedied by not using addresses listed in DNS. Keith On Jul 30, 2013, at 7:12 AM, Hosnieh Rafiee wrote: > The term public addresses: > @Keith Moore: > Concerns: All IPv6 addresses are public addresses and should be available. > Not chosen a good term. > > I just obtained that term from from the mailing list. Check this old list : > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg17792.html > A public address is one intended to be resolvable from higher-layer IDs such > as DNS names. > If this is wrong or I misunderstood the meaning , then I will change it to > “DNS addresses” or another term. > What I knew before: > Global addresses = Router prefix + IID > Local Addresses = local prefix + IID > What I understood: > Public addresses = router prefix + IID and has DNS records (like a domain) >
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
