IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ideas] [5gangip] Comments to draft-vonhugo-5gangip-ip-issues-00

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Tue, 20 September 2016 23:24 UTC

Return-Path: <farinacci@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ideas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ideas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A70FE12B011; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 16:24:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 QFy6lG0R9ZUF; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 16:24:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x235.google.com (mail-pf0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::235]) (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 B5EDC126D74; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 16:24:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x235.google.com with SMTP id z123so12112334pfz.2; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 16:24:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=iY8JMkdoH3z9v/Fx/i0tHu8BO4R4pHyspQiE1HyDefc=; b=Qi7LNqP0ouT7U2zCcHDhTEjR2T+wL2PnlqNH2q0hSogPbjgwpWvZg2VQ20NPtNHYVG bNWjFVdBcEr1gtdz5R4Q6Svj9/cqN6AHcNOafU/u6CEzG3xnZOSwq+TkOwpBE6tr+W9y zb0TPMx4JJAkRTvBAfxVEu8LxzBXK1AFjQkVeyr1voKkPZhIqUMoD7T2FWx/f4KYYof/ lS6deM/bVeEBzzjsRQnTbNCLA4DZYDIVoOXab3ktYrrqjliYCigVgj8N9ndCpEB/BDo4 YbSH9kNTlTWGYJngGQaq/colnsia/QJvXSaIrAn1+7Y0xS0QljCmoEdNRVvg1dqcneIg jRQg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=iY8JMkdoH3z9v/Fx/i0tHu8BO4R4pHyspQiE1HyDefc=; b=IgdEGeZW2FT2sWtqsajTvERmDtzCuntJjrp8RkvIDwAH2hSDZPVV/FR9FV30588K5S awi6HcOuY0EkMrwVI7/f7O0ZBam1rMwwyHcgLAlUVCr4gD9+pgkLFAMW4IGA0lmNhWli RKz9ZFv5W5dIUWzq/cuaLqidJQfxiqNRojnCqZBss7uG75PpWxS9W721ZHvYA5UCeHFF cmufNWStzMeX3norgmb0rMR1fCfhrgYb89Acv6zfnFS24OT772p9trRrWu9Plm3USfZz 2CcuNyPkzl/uMi5PHJeNXDwuev2MkJracVTTXE8GTwRhwUHjH2hpf5gUD7ccXnhdAZIM LRrQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwOBnYb6KD20ltV9CBKPnE1akNiuev8H+E2l6iEcsZwb7SJzK8WEXyx+MwnyPGb2LQ==
X-Received: by 10.98.66.212 with SMTP id h81mr60483781pfd.51.1474413844374; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 16:24:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.31.99.194] (173-164-160-211-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [173.164.160.211]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id zy17sm25538045pab.28.2016.09.20.16.24.03 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 20 Sep 2016 16:24:03 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <02b501d21368$c27e9d90$477bd8b0$@huitema.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 16:24:04 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <356A4D2C-B639-415C-AD88-033126539368@gmail.com>
References: <AA6C2C69-3B95-4F14-B301-2B7DB83D3373@gmail.com> <CAC8QAcca1fx-Z8b-Q_Kdv9_ETgjov9RsPt+CeDN5wrC=5WoTaw@mail.gmail.com> <29FC5745-22E5-4E0E-A918-822BD30DE610@gmail.com> <029c01d21363$3d5f6e00$b81e4a00$@huitema.net> <A71D4787-AFE7-4FB0-8277-6FAF62EE7D8D@gmail.com> <02b501d21368$c27e9d90$477bd8b0$@huitema.net>
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ideas/X7gsTZkCNe-UyXdRWuq7102yUUM>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 21:22:26 -0700
Cc: ideas@ietf.org, Richard Li <renwei.li@huawei.com>, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, AshwoodsmithPeter <Peter.AshwoodSmith@huawei.com>, sarikaya@ieee.org, Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de, David Meyer <dmm@1-4-5.net>, 5gangip@ietf.org, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma0528@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Ideas] [5gangip] Comments to draft-vonhugo-5gangip-ip-issues-00
X-BeenThere: ideas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussions relating to the development, clarification, and implementation of control-plane infrastructures and functionalities in ID enabled networks." <ideas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ideas>, <mailto:ideas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ideas/>
List-Post: <mailto:ideas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ideas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ideas>, <mailto:ideas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 23:24:07 -0000

> On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 10:27 AM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>> ...
>>> And that would be a terrible privacy issue, allowing anybody on the path to
>> track movements of the device, from routers to servers, spooks and hackers.
>> There is a reason why the IPv6 working groups
>> 
>> The inner header is always encrypted and therefore obfuscated.
> 
> Well, it is visible by some nodes, isn't it? Like, visible by the end nodes, such as servers. Think advertising servers, tracking people across the web…

Depends how far the xTR is from the EID. It can be co-located with the application so a decrypted EID would only be in the application’s process space.

> 
>>> deprecated the usage of MAC addresses as node identifiers, and the same
>> reasoning applies even more to IMEI.
>> 
>> And guess what, they will make a come back since IoT challenged hardware
>> doesn’t have to run IPv6-ND and suffer messaging latency.
> 
> We are certainly having that debate too. I am not sure that the "IPv6-ND overhead" argument is valid — 

Well let me help make it valid. No IPv6-ND is less overhead than running it. Agree?

> the IOT devices are not resolving their own address, some kind of controller is. And in any case, that can be mitigated by using randomized MAC addresses.

Not in the ITS use-case.

> Now, of course, we could consider using randomized IMEI. That would be a great improvement for mobile phone privacy.

Agree.

Dino

> 
> -- Christian Huitema
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 5gangip mailing list
> 5gangip@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email