Re: [Int-area] request to consider sponsoring http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-04

["Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <[e-mail]>]

There are several paid VPN services that provide anonymity through
addresses sharing. This is becoming more and more popular these days.

It is public to public translation where you get a shared IP address on
purpose. This is not for attack purposes but just to reduce tracking by
third-parties. 

I would think that people interested in these services will continue to
use them but public IPv6 to public IPv6.

On 3/7/14, 12:31 PM, "Dan Wing (dwing)" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>On Mar 6, 2014, at 6:03 PM, Brian E Carpenter
><[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> a) Since this is fixing some of the damage done by NAT, it's
>> really unfinished business for BEHAVE, which if iirc was a
>> Transport Area WG. Just saying...
>> 
>> b) The word "privacy" doesn't appear in the draft. Discussing
>> privacy aspects is clearly essential if there is any thought of
>> advancing this work. Actually I doubt if such a host ID is ever
>> going to be acceptable from a privacy point of view, unless the
>> end system is at liberty to change it at random (like RFC 4941).
>
>I interpret your statement to mean that address sharing is a desirable
>security property.  If that interpretation is correct, where does that
>leave IPv6?
>
>
>> c) A hard-nosed argument is that since we want to sunset IPv4,
>> it's time to stop working on ways of making NAT solutions work
>> better. Is there anything in the use cases that can't be fixed by
>> native IPv6?
>
>Yes, attackers won't move to IPv6 if IPv4 provides them a superior way to
>hide their activities.  There are attackers already using IPv4 CGN to
>obfuscate themselves.
>
>-d
>
>
>> 
>> (The use case in expired draft
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-fmc-prefix-sharing-usecase-01
>> is not at all convincing to me, especially when adding the privacy
>> argument. It actually seems to describe a bug in 3GPP. But in any case,
>> the draft appears to suggest mitigations.)
>> 
>> Regards
>>   Brian
>> 
>> On 07/03/2014 05:28, joel jaeggli wrote:
>>> Greetings int-area and hiaps-mailing-list folks,
>>> 
>>> I realize that this is midweek at the IETF, however this question is
>>>not
>>> far from several discussions I've had this week.
>>> 
>>> I have been asked to consider AD sponsoring
>>> 
>>>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scena
>>>rios-04
>>> 
>>> In the process of  considering doing so I'd like to get some input with
>>> respect to:
>>> 
>>> A. The appetite for pursuing some or any of this work in existing
>>> working groups, and in particular within the INT area.
>>> 
>>> B. A consensus basis for moving beyond RFC 6269 into active work in
>>>this
>>> area.
>>> 
>>> C. How we address concerns raised by the IETF community expressed
>>> through  draft-farrell-perpass-attack when evaluating scenarios and
>>> beginning to address requirements and solution-space.
>>> 
>>> Obviously these are complex questions and I do not expect that we will
>>> arrive at answers easily nor does work on this or other drafts depend
>>>on
>>> answering them, however it's part of the dialog.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> joel
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Int-area mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Int-area mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>
>_______________________________________________
>Int-area mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area