IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 64bit MAC addresses and SLAAC

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com> Thu, 18 June 2020 10:13 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.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 81F603A03ED for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 03:13:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 kWLx9u90OpA1 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 03:13:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [130.37.15.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B020D3A0365 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 03:13:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #157) id m1jlrYH-0000LgC; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 12:13:45 +0200
Message-Id: <m1jlrYH-0000LgC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Subject: Re: 64bit MAC addresses and SLAAC
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <e8a25961-5ac9-d35e-77dd-bf86f45cd077@gmail.com> <a17ae9f3-001c-07f6-84f9-a0ca583e6a00@gmail.com> <7AE5B6D0-AB01-4077-A9EF-5BD86F428681@gmail.com> <CAC8QAcdDjQvonke7hytV8pCYsTAjATNi560v_b32jus_jDW8bw@mail.gmail.com> <b43a00f5-c957-923a-cef4-ed541ebdb39a@gmail.com> <a96f1262-d152-dc09-1c2f-b2604ca21890@si6networks.com> <m1jlb8u-0000JDC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <d23c967b-29fc-cf94-d51b-70d200ee195f@si6networks.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 17 Jun 2020 16:06:28 -0300 ." <d23c967b-29fc-cf94-d51b-70d200ee195f@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 12:13:44 +0200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Q1AX0OdNvFdlH-qcRdvM49B7gSE>
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, 18 Jun 2020 10:13:50 -0000

>> If a host is connected to a subnet that has multiple prefixes, then using
>> the same IID for all prefixes only has marginally less privacy than
>> using different IIDs.
>
>Well, it does allow correlation of network activities across addresses. 
>In a way, that's kind of the same as when a host moves across networks.

My home network has a number of prefixes. From reverse DNS you can easily
figure out that they are the same. How does it help me to have different IIDs
for different prefixes?

Same applies to any org that tries to renumber.

I'm not saying that anything needs to be changed. Just that we should not
oversell the privacy benefits.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email