IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios

"Manfredi (US), Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> Thu, 14 February 2019 19:30 UTC

Return-Path: <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
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 3C4B0130E6F for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 11:30:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 V95jNRSqcbsj for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 11:30:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.144.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9772112DDA3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 11:30:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id x1EJUs8q018861; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 14:30:54 -0500
Received: from XCH16-01-08.nos.boeing.com (xch16-01-08.nos.boeing.com [144.115.65.218]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id x1EJUiAI017746 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 14 Feb 2019 14:30:44 -0500
Received: from XCH16-01-11.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.39) by XCH16-01-08.nos.boeing.com (144.115.65.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.1591.10; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 11:30:43 -0800
Received: from XCH16-01-11.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::a96c:5d85:1337:4323]) by XCH16-01-11.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::a96c:5d85:1337:4323%4]) with mapi id 15.01.1591.014; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 11:30:43 -0800
From: "Manfredi (US), Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet=40consulintel.es@dmarc.ietf.org>
CC: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios
Thread-Topic: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios
Thread-Index: AQHUxCBHRRM+C8/2XkuG8rODXW4PVqXfllAAgAAFt4CAAAUwgIAAAy4AgAAM9oCAAAQqgP//9njQ
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 19:30:43 +0000
Message-ID: <e3e0bf2273e04f15b792665d0f66dfe5@boeing.com>
References: <60fabe4b-fd76-4b35-08d3-09adce43dd71@si6networks.com> <m1gptWx-0000G3C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <69609C58-7205-4519-B17A-4FBC8AE2EA16@employees.org> <d40b41c3-ff1b-cab4-a8de-16692a78e8fd@go6.si> <D1E45CAD-08D0-43D4-90F7-C4DD44CB32C0@employees.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1902041330531.23912@uplift.swm.pp.se> <46B8DB92-DC81-4242-9780-0D00FB6BDB7A@employees.org> <1c7ebabb-d6f6-d877-d4aa-d6c0fc7d5c60@go6.si> <6278.1549471453@dooku.sandelman.ca> <CAO42Z2xdKtLJV11KXELBKca6CWn=B6Avz6bO_94kFFXaKiZ-pQ@mail.gmail.com> <4602.1549908472@localhost> <CAO42Z2w1swQNuwnrOyTCEMXt0NSyrBx7Ww3kUN-7dfEV=fvk3A@mail.gmail.com> <c16e0e1f-1ed2-ad88-80f1-070bdd8bccca@go6.si> <1F2C2AEE-1C7D-481C-BBA7-7E507312C53A@employees.org> <e56a6e5b-648d-200e-c35d-97f15a31fb2a@asgard.org> <CAO42Z2zh7fKAgQJq9aLCTiFoSSsTeGM=pK3gXitg+gcxH=9fhQ@mail.gmail.com> <d38857c2-6e92-91d6-bb5d-d3eeeb61276a@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2yb47OyXk__Sz-kO00pfcBJgLAhff5DF=mpAddR0iCnAA@mail.gmail.com> <2612280f-195a-ae7a-b3b1-9022d9282fa7@foobar.org> <56F813F4-C512-40A9-8A68-1090C76A80F6@consulintel.es> <CAHL_VyCN8kU7qnLOphfGR25-xGBe_p6WeGTkKVXwU5uy5aJ8Dg@mail.gmail.com> <65DB4854-97D2-4C31-A691-2CD93812EF93@consulintel.es> <CAHL_VyCMpCcGkEQu+RV1GRf2QLB-HD0+AOOBV0YhfQ5sbydVzQ@mail.gmail.com> <8CE7A0CD-97D9-46A0-814D-CAF8788F9964@consulintel.es>
In-Reply-To: <8CE7A0CD-97D9-46A0-814D-CAF8788F9964@consulintel.es>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [144.115.204.6]
x-tm-snts-smtp: 6E80D22A214DC6CFBAD145CD2AFF1331779C887FFACC6D0A06B9F53A9922F9622000:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/57QiE9a7DrNc0DFIVKz9AHmE6RA>
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: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 19:30:59 -0000

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ

> I know that IP addresses are considered personal data, but that doesn't mean they must be non-persistent. Only means that third parties (not the ISP) can't store that data without customer consent, and that the ISP can't provide that data to third parties. This is not different if is a non-persistent prefix!

I've been diligently following this (enlightening) thread. But the privacy aspects of this desire to retain a persistent IPv6 prefix are undeniable. I'm not sure how to reconcile:

1. The strong recommendation against persistent or EUI-based IIDs,

2. The strong desire to have 64-bit IIDs, and

3. This idea of retaining a persistent CPE prefix.

If the prefix is known to be 64 bits wide, and is persistent, that prefix identifies a household every bit as positively as a persistent 64-bit IID identifies a device. How come we aren't seeing recommendations AGAINST persistent prefixes for CPE devices?

Bert

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email