Hello, Erik, On 03/21/2018 05:47 PM, Erik Kline wrote: > On 21 March 2018 at 09:58, Fernando Gont <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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> > > 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).
Yep, that's what we meant. We'll clarify this in the next rev. >> * Analysis of IPv6 address properties: >> <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). 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'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. I will take a look. Thanks! Best regards, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: [email protected] PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
