IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Address privacy

Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> Mon, 27 January 2020 00:04 UTC

Return-Path: <jared@puck.nether.net>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 129C21200E5 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 16:04:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 UHuZkgXMVfw6 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 16:04:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from puck.nether.net (puck.nether.net [IPv6:2001:418:3f4::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 917E91200DB for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 16:04:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.0.155] (c-68-32-79-179.hsd1.mi.comcast.net [68.32.79.179]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by puck.nether.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 36844540248; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 19:04:03 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: Address privacy
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <6c5ba72d-9289-90ba-a1c9-2307ed29a4da@foobar.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2020 19:04:02 -0500
Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <196E9548-7D89-4E0A-9944-CC95DE73C7A4@puck.nether.net>
References: <6c5ba72d-9289-90ba-a1c9-2307ed29a4da@foobar.org>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17C54)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/2NVHcnKnjIEzX5pgv8oFiLl_Tyk>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 00:04:06 -0000

And makes debugging router hashing issues much harder. What is your source address? Which one does the machine use now?

The operation of a network is much harder as a result. Not impossible but harder. Add in the limited value as tracking is far more sophisticated and then scaling issues of ND and this is how you end up with networks without v6. 

I am not a v6 hater, I see it on public WiFi which makes me super happy but I've also had to debug these things and it's very painful. 

Sent from my iCar

> On Jan 26, 2020, at 4:37 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
> 
> Tom Herbert wrote on 26/01/2020 20:16:
>> It's intuitive
>> that a higher frequency of address rotation yields more privacy
> 
> intuitive, but probably inaccurate because of the a priori assumption that privacy is strongly associated with the endpoint identifier.
> 
> Nick
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email