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

["Lee, Yiu" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stephen,

Thanks for the notes. Actually, we believe that there are good privacy reasons to randomize mac-address. This BoF isn't trying to "fix" randomized mac-address. On the contrary, we want the community to embrace it. In order to ease the anxiety for transitioning, we want to document what may break and propose best practice to transition to dynamic mac-address.

Thanks,
Yiu


On 9/22/20, 4:51 PM, "Int-area on behalf of Stephen Farrell" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:


    That agenda and draft seem to make the seemingly common
    enough mistake of only focusing on what a new privacy or
    security mechanism breaks and glossing over the good
    reasons why people introduce these mechanisms. I hope the
    BoF proponents fix that because otherwise they may end up
    giving the impression that they would prefer to not see
    the privacy benefits (which I'd guess is not their goal
    at all). One reason those good reasons need to be included
    is that they constrain the kinds of additions that might
    make sense to better handle the new mechanism.

    We've seen a number of these kinds of reactions and I
    figure it'd really be better if the reaction were not to
    appear purely reactionary;-)

    If that were fixed, then there may be a better discussion
    of what, if any, additional things need doing. If that is
    not fixed, I'd not be surprised if the putative BoF were
    to devolve into a "it's bad" vs. "no, it's good" bun fight
    that won't really take us further.

    Cheers,
    S.

    On 22/09/2020 21:40, Michael Richardson wrote:
    >
    > 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/14Skgm84GslPZ9UcGoWY3uzmK6I__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!Q0pEjWrLTcmcryUR2EMbSc6uWBNU-xJadaznxWvwmDk2-ARoR0DYYq_eprXSEjo$ >
    > 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/jlivingood/IETF109BoF/blob/master/109-Agenda.md__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!Q0pEjWrLTcmcryUR2EMbSc6uWBNU-xJadaznxWvwmDk2-ARoR0DYYq_e7alyc8U$  and the
    >> proposal is in
    >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/jlivingood/IETF109BoF/blob/master/BoF-Proposal-20200918.md__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!Q0pEjWrLTcmcryUR2EMbSc6uWBNU-xJadaznxWvwmDk2-ARoR0DYYq_eNfKGqkE$ . You
    >> can also find the draft here
    >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-randomized-macaddr-ps-01__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!Q0pEjWrLTcmcryUR2EMbSc6uWBNU-xJadaznxWvwmDk2-ARoR0DYYq_erhCF3-A$ .
    >>
    >> 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
    >
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > homenet mailing list
    > [e-mail]
    > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!Q0pEjWrLTcmcryUR2EMbSc6uWBNU-xJadaznxWvwmDk2-ARoR0DYYq_epVo5mQQ$
    >