IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy-03

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Tue, 16 February 2016 10:42 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AE4B1B2CEF; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 02:42:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable
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 syguo5lV1pIx; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 02:41:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F6A51B2A90; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 02:41:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.101] (unknown [181.165.125.191]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5333185284; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:41:51 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy-03
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>, Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy.all@ietf.org>
References: <56B0DBA3.2050406@nostrum.com> <56C238F8.4040400@gmail.com> <56C23FE6.5000207@nostrum.com> <3990c04ce860428ab90d0142102b7bfc@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <56C2EE40.1060701@si6networks.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 06:39:12 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3990c04ce860428ab90d0142102b7bfc@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/IgJRptLOMoNZxwvd65l4kmZxV3c>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 10:42:08 -0000

Bernie,

On 02/15/2016 06:37 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> Perhaps we should get away from whether something is easy or
> difficult to implement or whether the algorithm may be more (or less)
> efficient.
> 
> I think the point of this material is to ENCOURAGE random assignment
> rather than sequential to improve privacy- so keep it at that. Let
> implementers worry about how efficient an algorithm is?

There are a number of operational and security/privacy considerations
that depend on the actual algorithm that you employ.

I'm not sure what you mean by "random". IID=random() everytime an
address has to be leased? -- or do you really mean "unpredictable"?.

At the end of the day, what you want is to specify desired properties.

Besides, assignment of sequential addresses should be banned. They have
always been a bad idea (see
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-predictable-protocol-ids>) and
they shouldn't even be considered an option.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email