Re: Address privacy

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 26/1/20 14:42, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Tom Herbert <[e-mail]> wrote:
>      >> Except that instead of doing it at layer 4, you do it with IPsec, and extrude
>      >> that /128 to your machine.  This is already a thing :-)
>      >>
>      >> > Another solution I’ve considered is to have a giant anonymity mesh,
>      >> > with every ISP’s user participating, and forward flows through this
>      >> > mesh, treating each customer as an anonymity server.   I think this is
>      >>
>      >> This is also a thing called Tor.
>      >>
>      > Michael,
> 
>      > Doesn't that require that the users must explicitly configure when
>      > they want privacy? I think a general solution should be transparent to
> 
> Yes, I agree, it requires explicit configuration.
> I agree that this is not a good thing.
> 
>      > the user and "just works" to ensure their privacy. That in fact is one
>      > of the arguments for NAT. If there is a significantly large enough
>      > pool of users behind a NAT device, then the obfuscation is transparent
>      > to the use and seems to be pretty good privacy (good enough that law
>      > enforcement is concerned about NAT). I suppose a similar effect could
>      > be achieved with a transparent proxy.
> 
> Yes, and I think that more and more LEA will grow ever concerned about this
> situation, and it *is* pushing IPv6 adoption. 

This somehow implies that criminals are expected to switch to v6 rather 
than continue to use v4 to hide their activities.


-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492