Re: Address privacy

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

Tom, your description is somewhat misleading.

On the one hand, LISP replies on per-flow state only in the mapping 
entity.  Not at arbitrary places in the network.

Secondly, if hosts work in terms of identifiers, and the network works 
in temrs of locators, someone has to map them.  You can cache (including 
caching the whole thing), you can ask the host to hold the cache itself. 
  There are other tradeoffs you can make, moving things around.  But you 
can't just magically make the problem disappear.

Yours,
Joel

On 1/26/2020 2:51 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 9:42 AM Michael Richardson
> <[e-mail]> 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.  So, how can we find a happy medium?
>>
>>      > You might want to take a look at draft-herbert-ipv6-prefix-address-privacy-00.
>>
>> An interesting read. I'm not sure where it goes.
>>
>> I would like Locator/Identifier separation.
>> I wanted SHIM6. LISP would work, I think.
>> Then privacy needs don't need to screw up efficient routing at the edge.
>>
> Hi Michael,
> 
> The problem of LISP is that it potentially includes a cache in the
> operator network that can be driven by downstream untrusted users--
> hence there is possibility of DOS attack on the cache (this is the
> primary reason why LISP hasn't been accepted into Linux).
> 
> What we really want is Identifier/Locator routing that neither
> requires per flow state to be maintained in the network nor relies on
> caches to get reasonable performance.
> draft-herbert-ipv6-prefix-address-privacy suggests crypto functions to
> map identifiers to locators at the edge.
> 
> Tom
> 
> 
>>
>> --
>> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
>>   -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>