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

[Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>]

> Casual observation is what happens when the identifier can be shown in
> network traffic, logs, etc. There, the properties vary depending on how
> the hash is constructed. If H = hash(public-key), then the identifier is
> static, and the privacy properties are just the same as publishing the
> public key -- which means, mostly terrible, as EKR said. On the other
> hand, if H =
> hash(public-key|something-that-changes-for-every-session-and-is-hard-to-predict),
> then the properties are similar to privacy preserving IPv6 addresses.

Just note how much better the above is than what we have today with both provider-assigned and provider-independent address allocations.

> Many of the scenarios seem to require proof-of-ownership, as in "proving
> that the device can legitimately use the ID by demonstrating ownership
> of the public key behind the ID". In that case, you are effectively
> publishing the public key. If the public key is static and permanent,

A single instance of a public-key is static but you don’t always have to use one identifier, and thereby don’t need to use one key-pair. And with a locator/ID separated architecture, you have flexibility to not require permanent addresses.

> that is a pretty strong identifier with terrible privacy properties. On
> the other hand, if you can pick a new public key for every session, then
> the privacy properties are reasonable.

See Bitcoin example.

Dino