IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default?

Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> Wed, 29 January 2020 11:39 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 A4A7F120834 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 03:39:11 -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, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 2BJ3fs535Akq for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 03:39:10 -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 608AE120802 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 03:39:10 -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 F0C425401ED; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 06:39:08 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default?
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <56BD2286-D761-44EF-812B-82BAFB380992@employees.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 06:39:07 -0500
Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <0163A2F7-7874-43BF-B0CE-E83D62A92123@puck.nether.net>
References: <56BD2286-D761-44EF-812B-82BAFB380992@employees.org>
To: otroan@employees.org
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17D50)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/USQcOZU4ddo0DtcZj6dnoAA18E4>
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: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 11:39:12 -0000


> On Jan 29, 2020, at 6:28 AM, otroan@employees.org wrote:
> 
> Enterprises use web proxies and SSL intercepting gateways anyway, don't they (sigh).

Some do. I've worked places that did for non-SSL. Keep in mind the operator of that network tends to only allow devices managed by them so they are not user devices. A user generally has no right to privacy on equipment they do not own. 

(This is a controversial position to state in the IETF but is still valid). 

- Jared

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email