Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses
Alex Abrahams <alex@technicalenlightenment.com> Thu, 29 March 2012 13:13 UTC
Return-Path: <alex@technicalenlightenment.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 4A72921F8B3B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:13:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gazjL79vqCVn for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:13:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F1EA21F8B39 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ggmi1 with SMTP id i1so1569797ggm.31 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:x-gm-message-state:content-type; bh=EDSSTBKH8duuLbqz5oVdVxxQtW5DgkFETelX/9/ca2U=; b=BkgM4+1OviAsTZhFjFqo35NZkr6VeDxZq59CaQ1z87i05aAQCAfBG7bLXBPLmXSr0Y oyeyqhF10Er/wHvaJLkb9v+6cDL0ZSVQquXoNOaJB7qelHVPxZmX2E2aG0fcDPAQbAR8 /d3UXKHaAwM0SeLFtG8U4ILohlY/c2aauNXWhuWUY3AeAekN40XJiZWCgcwYZhn6eUeH ZpY2Zr2oaLli1TelrTbyXGRst8E5uoJAAPLN8ineDKH4+Pas8OvHd2rhyYuYpr2BtEkJ iQvnvslQDnPAQxE4p6NfIeP+YzfbKcZWWfGnb2EZKOt7PXowK2FPc7/1STDHryje+eoM 6wIg==
Received: by 10.50.104.137 with SMTP id ge9mr1511290igb.0.1333026803840; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:13:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.247.198 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:13:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [94.193.97.134]
In-Reply-To: <03d301cd0d97$b3361060$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
References: <4F716D5C.40402@innovationslab.net> <4F71F217.7000209@globis.net> <03d301cd0d97$b3361060$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: Alex Abrahams <alex@technicalenlightenment.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:13:03 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFnCNEdWUFDjoCBKeZYiCwEjvAepqK2ZXrsy+yoKmQze5vwKmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses
To: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnHNe7wP1mH+GQc1/kiBorDWUlE6lI64JoC2VrDgvlVNT1Iw1nTI+v9TNcSEzCmNxm/FShC
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8f23585f1e751104bc617d92"
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 29 Mar 2012 13:13:26 -0000
I'm sorry, but while I agree we have to think outside the corporate environment, I think we have to think way outside and we need to remember the kind of reasons why privacy exists, before saying the privacy extensions are only to keep a few hundred people happy. To give just one example, homosexuality still carries the death penalty in 9 countries. While I know there are other ways of tracking people online, I'd really prefer it if we didn't make it too easy for someone enforcing those laws to see who had used their pay-as-you-go smart phone to visit websites where guys would like to meet other guys, then a day later renewed their state car tax/insurance with the same phone. So while I agree from a technical stand point a network will be much easier to run if addresses are static, I think that not everyone that requires privacy have technically knowledge to understand the difference or make the change. My take is, if available, default to using the privacy address extensions, with corporations using group policy, or other tools to change as needed. I also think OS implementations SHOULD inform the user when a change from the privacy extensions has been enforced on the network. Alex
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Jong-Hyouk Lee
- 3484bis and privacy addresses Brian Haberman
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Arifumi Matsumoto
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Tassos Chatzithomaoglou
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Teemu Savolainen
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Francis Dupont
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Mohacsi Janos
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Tim Chown
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Roland Bless
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Samita Chakrabarti
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Simon Perreault
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Alex Abrahams
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Tina TSOU
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Wuyts Carl
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Karl Auer
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Karl Auer
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Fernando Gont
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Francis Dupont
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Fernando Gont
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Brian Haberman
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Fernando Gont
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Ray Hunter
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Fernando Gont
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Ray Hunter
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Sander Steffann
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Dominik Elsbroek
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Karl Auer
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses STARK, BARBARA H
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Karl Auer
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Roger Jørgensen
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Francis Dupont
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses jonne.soininen
- Re: Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Ray Hunter
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Doug Barton
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses t.petch
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Alex Abrahams
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Doug Barton
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Mark Andrews
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Fernando Gont
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Dave Thaler
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Ray Hunter
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses james woodyatt
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Ray Hunter
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Dave Thaler
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Brian E Carpenter
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Dave Thaler
- Re: RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Ray Hunter
- RE: RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Dave Thaler
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Ray Hunter
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Dave Thaler
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Ray Hunter
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Dave Thaler
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Dave Thaler
- Re: RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Ray Hunter
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Arifumi Matsumoto