Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy-03
Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Mon, 15 February 2016 21:15 UTC
Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E3D71B2BD0; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 13:15:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V0g5-H5c8tMI; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 13:15:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECCE51B2BD1; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 13:15:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from unnumerable.local (pool-173-57-158-165.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [173.57.158.165]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id u1FLFIIB044573 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=OK); Mon, 15 Feb 2016 15:15:19 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host pool-173-57-158-165.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [173.57.158.165] claimed to be unnumerable.local
To: Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy.all@ietf.org
References: <56B0DBA3.2050406@nostrum.com> <56C238F8.4040400@gmail.com>
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <56C23FE6.5000207@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 15:15:18 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56C238F8.4040400@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/jXXii0UvYm6BlHHKUgiNGxtHDaA>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy-03
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 21:15:29 -0000
Hi Tomek - Thanks for these edits. My points are all addressed, though I wish to push a little more on changing the focus of the following in the document: On 2/15/16 2:45 PM, Tomek Mrugalski wrote: <snip/> > >> In section 4.3, the paragraph on Random allocation comments on the >> poor performance of a specific simplistic implementation of random >> selection. More efficient algorithms exist. But the discussion is >> mostly irrelevant to the document. Please simplify this paragraph to >> focus on the benefits of random allocation. > I somewhat disagree. First, there are more efficient algorithms known, > but they are not always used. This document is a analysis, so we tried > to provide an analysis of what's actually happening in actual > implementations. In an ideal world where privacy is the top priority > every implementation would use truly random allocation using hardware > entropy generators. Sadly, the reality of DHCP servers market is that > performance matters a lot. Lowered performance is a price for better > privacy. This fact directly affects DHCP server implementors, which are > the target audience for this document. These are my arguments why the > discussion about performance penalty is there and should stay in my opinion. Then I suggest this variation: "In deployed systems, address allocation strategies such as choosing the next sequentially available address are chosen over strategies such as pseudo-random allocation across the available address pool because the latter are more difficult to implement efficiently." To be very clear (and I do _not_ want to put this discussion in the document), an implementation could keep a structure (probably a linked-list) of blocks of unallocated addresses, and very efficiently select an address pseudo-randomly from the addresses in that structure, modifying the structure to make the next selection just as efficient (similarly modifying the structure when addresses are returned to the pool). This would not have the performance degradation that the simple strategy you currently discuss has. While they're entertaining, I think discussing _either_ way of approaching such a random selection algorithm distracts the reader from the point of understanding the privacy implications. > > <snip/> RjS
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv… Robert Sparks
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-dhc-d… Tomek Mrugalski
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-dhc-d… Robert Sparks
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-dhc-d… Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-dhc-d… Robert Sparks
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-dhc-d… Fernando Gont
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-dhc-d… Tomek Mrugalski
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-dhc-d… Bernie Volz (volz)
- [Gen-art] Gen-Art review: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-p… Robert Sparks
- Re: [Gen-art] [dhcwg] Gen-Art review: draft-ietf-… Jari Arkko