IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses for the network)

Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> Sun, 26 January 2020 00:18 UTC

Return-Path: <jared@puck.nether.net>
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 33140120047 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 16:18:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 P7ViQf1Yt8NO for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 16:18:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from puck.nether.net (puck.nether.net [IPv6:2001:418:3f4::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2BE112001E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 16:18:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.0.155] (c-68-32-79-179.hsd1.mi.comcast.net [68.32.79.179]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by puck.nether.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AB9DF540215; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 19:18:21 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-62D6C421-054F-4141-B2BA-F0A9A1E788B8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses for the network)
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S34rybXdES7=3EJffpPUrZ+D6rBffk9yJUoMQfsT-BLShQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2020 19:18:20 -0500
Cc: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Message-Id: <B013092B-33DA-4636-BC07-1D054DCBC8BE@puck.nether.net>
References: <CALx6S34rybXdES7=3EJffpPUrZ+D6rBffk9yJUoMQfsT-BLShQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17C54)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/RBbM7sNo5VUn1mcBMhGZZK8mOL0>
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: Sun, 26 Jan 2020 00:18:27 -0000

I'm not convinced that I get more privacy by using the privacy addresses and more than encoding my emails with rot13. 

The industry has far more advanced ways to fingerprint users. The data done by https://amiunique.org/ folks as well as others make it clear that IP addresses aren't the means of tracking that I believe the concerns that introduced privacy addresses were attempting to solve. 

Sent from my iCar

> On Jan 25, 2020, at 3:53 PM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:
> 
> "Using temporary address alone may not be sufficient to prevent all
> forms of tracking. It is however quite clear that some usage of
> temporary addresses is necessary to improve user privacy."
> 
> It's intuitive that temporary addresses improve privacy. But the
> question quickly becomes _how_ do temporary addresses improve privacy,

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email