Re: [homenet] [Int-area] Evaluate impact of MAC address randomization to IP applications

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Damn. Spelt captive-portal without the s again.  Reposting, sorry for duplicates.
I hate when WG names and list names do not match, and that we can't have aliases.
And I think that reply-to gets filtered.

Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/14Skgm84GslPZ9UcGoWY3uzmK6I>
To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
From: Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 16:34:33 -0400

This thread was started today on the INTAREA WG ML.

While I don't object to a BOF, I don't know where it goes.
What I see is that much of this problem needs to be resolved through
increased use of 802.1X: making WPA-Enterprise easier to use and setup, this
changing core identity from MAC Address to IDevID.

My understanding is that Apple intends to randomize MAC every 12 hours, even
on the same "LAN" (ESSID), and that they will just repeat the WPA
authentication afterwards to get back on the network.   If the per-device
unique policy (including CAPPORT authorization) can be tied to the device
better, than the MAC address based "physical" exception can be updated.

But, WPA-PSK doesn't work, because it does not, in general, distinguish
between different devices.

It can be made to work if every device is given a unique PSK, and there are
some successful experiments doing exactly that.  Mostly it just works, but
the challenge is communicating the unique PSK through an unreliable human.
BRSKI can certainly do this, and it can leverage that unencrypted ESSID
present at most hospitality locations to get onto the encrypted
WPA-Enterprise.  Or BRSKI-TEEP, or some other BRSKI-EAP method.  The
unencrypted SSID is not going away at those locations.

Thus QR-code based methods are best, yet those do not work for many IoT
devices.   EMU's EAP-NOOB can help in certain cases, but we, as a community
need be clear on what direction we want to go.  One answer is that IoT
devices have little reason to randomize their MAC if they are not generally
ported.


On 2020-09-22 3:49 p.m., Lee, Yiu wrote:
> Hi team,
>
> We proposed a BoF. The agenda is in
> https://github.com/jlivingood/IETF109BoF/blob/master/109-Agenda.md and the
> proposal is in
> https://github.com/jlivingood/IETF109BoF/blob/master/BoF-Proposal-20200918.md. You
> can also find the draft here
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-randomized-macaddr-ps-01.
>
> At this stage, we are looking for inputs for more use cases and interests
> of working together in this domain. Please post your comments in the
> mailing list.
>
> Thanks
>


--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide