RE: [dhcwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-06.txt> (Anonymity profile for DHCP clients) to Proposed Standard

["Christian Huitema" <[e-mail]>]

On Monday, February 15, 2016 6:53 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>
> It's true that this profile mitigates the amount of information that can be collected. 
> But in IPv6 we have other configuration methods - such as SLAAC - that broadcast 
> way less information than stateless DHCPv6, which in turn broadcasts less information 
> than stateless DHCPv6.
>
> This document should recognize that at least on IPv6-only networks, it is an option 
> not to use DHCP at all, and that option has substantial privacy benefits that are in 
> many cases above what this profile can provide.

Well, section 4 of draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-07 says:

   The choice between the stateful and stateless scenarios depends on
   flag and prefix options published by the "Router Advertisement"
   messages of local routers, as specified in [RFC4861].  When these
   options enable stateless address configuration hosts using the
   anonymity profile SHOULD choose it over stateful address
   configuration, because stateless configuration requires fewer	
   information disclosures than stateful configuration.

That seems pretty close from what you want, at least as far as "stateful DHCPv6" is concerned.

-- Christian Huitema