Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-11.txt>

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 05/16/2016 01:29 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>>
>> Either we fix that or we stop asserting that this draft is motivated
>> by privacy considerations.
> 
> I would frankly be thrilled if we could get away from stable addresses
> altogether. But I’m skeptical about the feasibility of achieving
> consensus around that at present. Defining the approach in this draft in
> the meantime is certainly motivated by consideration for privacy
> improvement for me, even if that improvement is incremental.

There are scenarios in which you simply don't want that.

It might be desirable in the "roaming" case, but certainly not in others
(that's why RFC4941 keeps being disabled in enterprise deployments, for
instance).

Side note: Curiously enough, I'm told that:

* Some folks ding MAC address randomization randomize the layer-2
address when prbing networks, but employ a real address when associating
with the AP.

* OTOH, other folks implement RFC7217-like scheme for layer-2, but
rather than getting the RFC7217 outcome statelesly, they keep track of
networks visited, and the MAC addresses employed in each of them.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492