Re: [hiaps] [Int-area] request to consider sponsoring http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-04

Dan,

On 08/03/2014 09:31, Dan Wing wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2014, at 6:03 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> a) Since this is fixing some of the damage done by NAT, it's
>> really unfinished business for BEHAVE, which if iirc was a
>> Transport Area WG. Just saying...
>>
>> b) The word "privacy" doesn't appear in the draft. Discussing
>> privacy aspects is clearly essential if there is any thought of
>> advancing this work. Actually I doubt if such a host ID is ever
>> going to be acceptable from a privacy point of view, unless the
>> end system is at liberty to change it at random (like RFC 4941).
> 
> I interpret your statement to mean that address sharing is a desirable security property.  If that interpretation is correct, where does that leave IPv6?

I'm not sure where you found that in what I wrote. I think that address
sharing is undesirable from every point of view; I suppose it
might reduce the risk of layer 3 based tracking of users,
but that's certainly not what I meant. IPv6 with RFC 4941 (which
appears to be deployed in the vast majority of IPv6 clients today)
is fine from this point of view. I don't see any difference in
privacy effect between a randomly-changing shared-IPv4 Host ID and
a randomly-changing IPv6 address.

>> c) A hard-nosed argument is that since we want to sunset IPv4,
>> it's time to stop working on ways of making NAT solutions work
>> better. Is there anything in the use cases that can't be fixed by
>> native IPv6?
> 
> Yes, attackers won't move to IPv6 if IPv4 provides them a superior way to hide their activities.  There are attackers already using IPv4 CGN to obfuscate themselves.

Attackers will move to IPv6 when their targets do so. I guess
such attackers will find RFC 4941 useful too. What's good for
the privacy of legitimate users is also good for the privacy
of attackers.

   Brian

> -d
> 
> 
>> (The use case in expired draft
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-fmc-prefix-sharing-usecase-01
>> is not at all convincing to me, especially when adding the privacy
>> argument. It actually seems to describe a bug in 3GPP. But in any case,
>> the draft appears to suggest mitigations.)
>>
>> Regards
>>   Brian
>>
>> On 07/03/2014 05:28, joel jaeggli wrote:
>>> Greetings int-area and hiaps-mailing-list folks,
>>>
>>> I realize that this is midweek at the IETF, however this question is not
>>> far from several discussions I've had this week.
>>>
>>> I have been asked to consider AD sponsoring
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-04
>>>
>>> In the process of  considering doing so I'd like to get some input with
>>> respect to:
>>>
>>> A. The appetite for pursuing some or any of this work in existing
>>> working groups, and in particular within the INT area.
>>>
>>> B. A consensus basis for moving beyond RFC 6269 into active work in this
>>> area.
>>>
>>> C. How we address concerns raised by the IETF community expressed
>>> through  draft-farrell-perpass-attack when evaluating scenarios and
>>> beginning to address requirements and solution-space.
>>>
>>> Obviously these are complex questions and I do not expect that we will
>>> arrive at answers easily nor does work on this or other drafts depend on
>>> answering them, however it's part of the dialog.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> joel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> 
> .
> 