IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Int-area] [homenet] Evaluate impact of MAC address randomization to IP applications

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 22 September 2020 23:25 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F4703A005E; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 16:25:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 TGkwMR1_E_r4; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 16:25:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B46943A0045; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 16:25:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E964F389B0; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 19:03:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id EQMT8G_21H2o; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 19:03:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DE69389AD; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 19:03:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3BD840A; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 19:25:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, captive-portals@ietf.org, homenet@ietf.org, Internet Area <int-area@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <09A7F884-F102-4081-BB1D-F7760B2DCE9B@gmail.com>
References: <20200922201317.097C3389D4@tuna.sandelman.ca> <15660.1600807202@localhost> <902400f2-9172-9581-25ab-59ad08e67bee@cs.tcd.ie> <09A7F884-F102-4081-BB1D-F7760B2DCE9B@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 19:25:18 -0400
Message-ID: <20953.1600817118@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/IbV1lAg75ZNWzblmb36Z9-CiObw>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] [homenet] Evaluate impact of MAC address randomization to IP applications
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 23:25:34 -0000

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:
    > I have read the emails and the draft <draft-lee-randomized-macaddr-ps-01>.   I am not clear what the goal of the BOF is.

    > Could the proponents state it clearly?

I can't speak for the proponents, but at the simplest, one could add:
  "how can we do X if the MAC cannot be used as identity"

    > • LAN gateway NAPT forwarding - (PRESENTER TBD)
    > • Static NAPT policies - (PRESENTER TBD)
    > • Persistent DHCP IP address assignments - (PRESENTER TBD)
    > • Device-to-user or group association for malware protection - (PRESENTER TBD)
    > • Device-to-user or group association for parental controls - (PRESENTER TBD)
    > • Device-to-user or group association to restrict or authorize unwanted
    > or unverified device connections to the LAN - (PRESENTER TBD)

I don't get the NAPT issue though.
The NAPT issues are because DHCP gave the device a different IP(v4), right?
If you solve persistent DHCP, then you solve those, don't you?

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email