Hi, Thanks for the clarifications.
On the privacy part may be I need to read in more details the draft (I admit I just skimmed through it....). Will get back to you if I need more clarifications. Ciao L. > -----Original Message----- > From: waldemar <walde...@wdmsys.com> > Sent: Sunday, 19 February 2023 04:25 > To: Luigi IANNONE <luigi.iann...@huawei.com>; Evan Pratten > <ewprat...@gmail.com> > Cc: int-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Int-area] New -00 draft: draft-augustyn-intarea-ipref-00 > > It can certainly be used. The references are only carried up to the gateway > where they're used to produce local IP addresses. The devices inside the > private net would not see the references. IPREF allows substantial > customization of the local network protocol. It allows to run whatever > protocol one wants, with address compression or not, or even some special > protocol designed specifically for IoT. > > I am not sure why you think IPREF would reduce privacy vs NAT. Both rewrite > addresses so I would think both offer the same level of privacy. > If anything I would say IPREF offers more privacy. Maybe an example would > help me understand the issues in this area. In a typical configuration, there > would be a NAT router facing the Internet anyway (not required but likely). > The IPREF gateway could be a part of the NAT router or it can be on another > gateway 'behind NAT'. That way it should be at least as good as NAT. > > On 2/16/23 00:19, Luigi IANNONE wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I was wondering if it make sense to use it in an IoT deployment. > > In that context IP addresses are often compressed, so instead of > compression small sized references can be used. > > On the flip side, and in the general case, references reduce privacy w.r.t. > other technologies like e.g. NAT. > > This should be discussed in the document. > > > > Ciao > > > > L. > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Int-area <int-area-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Evan Pratten > >> Sent: Wednesday, 15 February 2023 20:04 > >> To: waldemar <walde...@wdmsys.com> > >> Cc: int-area@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: [Int-area] New -00 draft: > >> draft-augustyn-intarea-ipref-00 > >> > >> Ya, I guess using non-ip-addresses for the refs is a good idea for > >> networks that involve non IP-based hops. > > > >> Would it be possible to have a router do reference pass-through? I'm > >> thinking of a kind of double-NAT situation where I might want router > >> 1 to delegate the routing of refs to router 2. > >> > >> WAN <--> R1 <--> R2 <--> Clients > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 10:08 PM waldemar <walde...@wdmsys.com> > >> wrote: > >>> I was not thinking of chaining, this sounds like source routing, I > >>> am not sure. Cascading is certainly possible. The destination may > >>> rewrite one IPREF address into another IPREF address. This could be > >>> done multiple times. > >>> > >>> I wanted to avoid any sort of negotiations, any kind of time > >>> dependency, and I was trying to minimize amount of information > >>> shared > >> between peers. > >>> The peers don't trust each other that much except to agree to > >>> communicate. Using real addresses leads to negotiations and > >>> requires knowledge of peers address spaces and protocols, so that > >>> was not a good option. I was thinking of peer networks (multiplayer > >>> games, NAT traversal), high delay networks (space networks), and > >>> highly secure networks (financial, military). I thought avoiding > >>> negotiations would be the key. I was also convinced we'll be dealing > >>> with more than one network protocol for a while, hence no dependency > on a single protocol. > >>> IPREF might speed up unification, especially IPv6 in the Internet, > >>> but it could also make it easier to develop specialized network protocols. > >>> Maybe for high delay networks, maybe for highly secure networks, or > >>> maybe for simplified networks. > >>> > >>> On 2/14/23 12:25, Evan Pratten wrote: > >>>> I find this very interesting. > >>>> > >>>> Would it be possible to chain references? for example > >>>> 10.0.0.1+700+800? I can't think of a use case for this, but I'm > >>>> sure it would cross someone's mind to try. > >>>> > >>>> The way I see this, IPREF is essentially encoding some or all of > >>>> the route to the final host in the address. Why not use real IPs > >>>> all the way down? For example: 10.0.0.1+10.0.0.4. This wouldn't > >>>> require any translation of reference numbers. Although, would make > >>>> things less dynamic. > >>>> > >>>> --- > >>>> Evan Pratten (VA3ZZA) > >>>> https://ewpratten.com > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 11:10 AM waldemar > <walde...@wdmsys.com> > >> wrote: > >>>>> Hello, > >>>>> > >>>>> I have submitted a new -00 draft, > >>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-augustyn-intarea-ipref/. I > >>>>> am new to this, although I worked on an RFC some 15 years ago. I > >>>>> have contacted ADs for the area who advised me to seek feedback on > >>>>> this list. Please, provide your thoughts. I will be also > >>>>> submitting proper declarations in compliance with BCP 79. I need > >>>>> more time for > >> this. > >>>>> Thank you > >>>>> Waldemar Augustyn > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> Int-area mailing list > >>>>> Int-area@ietf.org > >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Int-area mailing list > >> Int-area@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
