Is addressing privacy via NAT really achieving much compared to a privacy goal of anonymity? (Re: [v6ops] A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios)

[Mark Smith <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tom,

On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 10:04, Tom Herbert <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 2:46 PM Mark Smith <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 08:53, Manfredi (US), Albert E
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >

<snip>

> >
> > So I think there's commonly a big different between works and works
> > well. NAT may work, however compared to stateless IPv6 (and IPv4)
> > forwarding, it doesn't work anywhere as near as well.
> >
> Mark,
>
> I agreee with that with one exception. I believe that NAT/IPv4 can
> offer better privacy in addressing than IPv6 given current addess
> allocation methods.
>

So I don't think addressing privacy via NAT is really all that
valuable if there are many other ways, some quite easy, to uniquely
identify an anonymity desiring end-point/end-user, whose effectiveness
aren't impacted at all by NAT.

For example, this website is coming over IPv4 for me, and I'm using
IPv4+NAPT. If IPv4+NAPT was that effective at anonymity, I shouldn't
be able to tracked.

https://amiunique.org/

Yet it is saying I can be with both Chrome and Firefox on Fedora 29 in
Incognito/Private windows mode on this host. It says the same about my
Android 9 phone with Chrome in Incognito mode.

Going into the detail of how, they don't seem to be using IP address
at all for any identification, it is all browser attributes.

We have IPv6 temporary addresses, which makes using addresses harder
to use to identify a node. I think that is a lot better than nothing.

However, I don't see how IPv6 NAT would improve it much, and it
introduces the other drawbacks of NAT.

Regards,
Mark.












> Tom
>
> > Regards,
> > Mark.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Bert
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > v6ops mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops