Re: [Ideas] WG Review: IDentity Enabled Networks (ideas)

Dino Farinacci <> Thu, 05 October 2017 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C0B81331FF; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 09:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RroEhipbGLSU; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 09:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AEE6132F3F; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 09:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id b11so8501367pgn.12; Thu, 05 Oct 2017 09:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=z8/3nxqFNqwDE0FodKDwFogzOQqyzxa+G9DDbhKP928=; b=Xfrrc9mN/znVegdOo0FmMhD/O8MJ7qV9lmIjMH+gRJ6tbQFfp9M678wmlpu8TmFb6N hS7flgXqEpAFVuOFwRJN1JKiTTwNMtHamror7I1u4tS/NHEG5oH3w3sJGWifw3AG5bmB mB508gUtuo5owY/8871K7x+bpsVxkUTnNv/NKeBzKPYZDUrfAmOQXmZgMF+Vul5JcpBp F3OhznHuerarmX1dTRZcqF67XS0arpGtUcSvwIDcdF3UnNn4Xik+fwrxi9jI+RKx1Qqj 8Lhbz8HHqTblhww6gOz92hRCTuBaCX3C8ByDecyLEHmrDhUfjcdRbU2WR5NoLcQuBD4+ fObg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=z8/3nxqFNqwDE0FodKDwFogzOQqyzxa+G9DDbhKP928=; b=QcbEaS1BRWp+932QMTmyXxcJ4rZXM/ij3d8T5q9z/F/wngtUnqIFe6t/q1HLFChEdk jKKansDcT3axUeR8jkDvgGx2X4b/0rqCvOE+iSsf2hrwgyqGOZ1iPQ/rXIlMmTysD1Nu 20vYsdhaq1ljK2I8HcmZA74T0SZ9r+AWSK+7J5KcKj55ruACtEayTG1HfQlXp5v9YO5+ aMHx1sC0eSFFLK0XVd2x1t+awr+VQPeuOlCVDuOpPQu/Ki88pHaPrR/hiZnscS2kYbxr /DdLDxpCOoD4CAHNJz+9jUyU+CCQcXGmAdR+4+ks6qA7HI3cx8+xO8dEuhcbDlL4i/Db J0KQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaWfxaXJKBEop6HZ8yNtQqvf0pExQrVd8AcBXxKeERtpygX9Cwu6 qoj7olocHHWNbmjzsK79R78=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QB0RI2jeUBiDTmHvgDJc2SpOI1nw3mr6wXiE1+8GxbXThymobsQ6neop5vfeT1hc3PY/5q0Dw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id n11mr8717766pls.172.1507221052221; Thu, 05 Oct 2017 09:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id s81sm36044203pfg.162.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Oct 2017 09:30:51 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Dino Farinacci <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 09:30:50 -0700
Cc: "Templin, Fred L" <>, "" <>, The IESG <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
To: Christian Huitema <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ideas] WG Review: IDentity Enabled Networks (ideas)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussions relating to the development, clarification, and implementation of control-plane infrastructures and functionalities in ID enabled networks." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2017 16:30:55 -0000

> Dino, I am well aware that we (well, you) *can* engineer ID/LOC networks
> to have good privacy properties. But I am also aware that if this is not
> an explicit goal in the charter, we may very well end up with

Agree 100%.

> architectures that have pretty bad properties. For example, most ID/LOC
> architectures rely on a database that provides the up-to-date LOC for an
> ID. In my bad dreams, I could see the database extended to provide other
> properties of the ID, such as subscriber ID. Similarly, there was a
> proposal some time ago to have a unique IPv6 identifier for every EU
> citizen; that bad idea was quashed, but we could easily see something
> like that resurface as on unique ID per user. That's why I would like to
> see the proposed charter to be crystal clear about privacy requirements,
> rather than just say that we will think about it.

Well, your dream is going to come true. There will be an IPv6 EID per IoT device.  ;-)