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

Ralf Weber <dns@fl1ger.de> Wed, 23 September 2020 05:26 UTC

Return-Path: <dns@fl1ger.de>
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 E42C13A0D48; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 22:26:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 63AcXyXNzvi6; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 22:26:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.guxx.net (nyx.guxx.net [85.10.208.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42B443A0D47; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 22:26:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by nyx.guxx.net (Postfix, from userid 107) id 046A15F4055D; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 05:26:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [100.64.0.1] (p4fc215d4.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.194.21.212]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by nyx.guxx.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3F9705F400D5; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 05:26:51 +0000 (UTC)
From: Ralf Weber <dns@fl1ger.de>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: int-area@ietf.org, captive-portal@ietf.org, homenet@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 07:26:50 +0200
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.2r5673)
Message-ID: <25515603-B04E-40F8-884C-49D818BE4C07@fl1ger.de>
In-Reply-To: <86fbabc6-ecec-fe9e-593e-e6ef87f67173@sandelman.ca>
References: <A8BB4316-BCAE-4E3C-AC3B-441D2ECB0338@comcast.com> <86fbabc6-ecec-fe9e-593e-e6ef87f67173@sandelman.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/YNeOqJ-fRgmtWMeafi4m3RNhG-4>
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: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 05:26:58 -0000

Moin!

On 22 Sep 2020, at 22:34, Michael Richardson wrote:

> This thread was started today on the INTAREA WG ML.
>
> While I don't object to a BOF, I don't know where it goes.
> What I see is that much of this problem needs to be resolved through 
> increased use of 802.1X: making WPA-Enterprise easier to use and 
> setup, this changing core identity from MAC Address to IDevID.
>
> My understanding is that Apple intends to randomize MAC every 12 
> hours, even on the same "LAN" (ESSID), and that they will just repeat 
> the WPA authentication afterwards to get back on the network.
I of course don’t know Apples intentions, but what you are describing 
is the behaviour of early iOS 14 beta versions. However this behaviour 
has changed in later beta versions and the released iOS 14.0 version to 
have a random Mac per ESSID and not change that over the lifetime of the 
device (at least no so far on my devices at home), which I think is more 
in line what the rest of the industry does.

So long
-Ralf
——-
Ralf Weber