Re: [dhcwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-06.txt> (Anonymity profile for DHCP clients) to Proposed Standard

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

On 2/16/16 12:26 AM, Christian Huitema wrote:
> On Monday, February 15, 2016 6:53 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>>
>> It's true that this profile mitigates the amount of information that can be collected. 
>> But in IPv6 we have other configuration methods - such as SLAAC - that broadcast 
>> way less information than stateless DHCPv6, which in turn broadcasts less information 
>> than stateless DHCPv6.
>>
>> This document should recognize that at least on IPv6-only networks, it is an option 
>> not to use DHCP at all, and that option has substantial privacy benefits that are in 
>> many cases above what this profile can provide.
> 
> Well, section 4 of draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-07 says:
> 
>    The choice between the stateful and stateless scenarios depends on
>    flag and prefix options published by the "Router Advertisement"
>    messages of local routers, as specified in [RFC4861].  When these
>    options enable stateless address configuration hosts using the
>    anonymity profile SHOULD choose it over stateful address
>    configuration, because stateless configuration requires fewer	
>    information disclosures than stateful configuration.
> 
> That seems pretty close from what you want, at least as far as "stateful DHCPv6" is concerned.

I would agree that the above text covers what I interpret as Lorenzo's
concern.

Regards,
Brian