Re: RE: draft-gont-6man-managing-privacy-extensions-00.txt

On Mar 9, 2011 11:34 PM, "Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> > Brian E Carpenter
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 10:49 AM
> > To: Mikael Abrahamsson
> > Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; Ran Atkinson
> > Subject: Re: draft-gont-6man-managing-privacy-extensions-00.txt
> >
> > On 2011-03-10 00:17, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> > > On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, Ran Atkinson wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gont-6man-managing-
> > privacy-extensions-00.txt>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I recommend that folks read the above draft.  I haven't seen the
> > >> I-D announcement get cross-posted to the IPv6 WG, perhaps due to
> > >> the volume of recent I-D postings, and the topic seems relevant.
> > >
> > > I don't think it solves what it thinks it solves, but if this REALLY
> > > should be implemented, it's my initial thinking that the H flag
> > should
> > > be a MUST demand to only have ONE and only one MAC-based IPv6 address
> > > according to EUI64. I would appreciate some reasoning in the draft
> > why
> > > this was chosen as a SHOULD option.
> >
> > For the reason I just gave against the disable-private flag: this
> > violates the host's right to use an untraceable address.
> >
> > It may be that in corporate deployments, that right can be removed.
>
> Nobody wants it removed in corporate deployments, either.  Consider
> for a moment an IPv6-enabled telephone, on the desk of a Very
> Important Person at a company, who is calling the CEO of some
> Itty Bitty Company.  And then the CEO calls.  Then someone on
> the acquisition team calls.  It hardly matters what they're talking
> about -- just seeing that traffic with those IPv6 addresses is
> sufficient to decide to buy (or sell) stock in Itty Bitty
> Company.
>
> We should, instead, look at how a host's privacy address can
> be reported and recorded, so the network administrator has all
> the necessary ability to determine which host is using which
> address now or in the past.  This is easily done -- without
> changing RA.
>
> If we don't have IPv6 privacy addresses, we will also soon
> see NAPT66 (with UDP and TCP port rewriting) in order to
> achieve the same result as privacy addresses:  trying to
> obfuscate which host is communicating.
>

+1.  Assume media and signalling are encrypted, node to node communication
can still reveal a lot.

Cb

> -d
>
>
> > But removing it for public subscribers would be a political blunder.
> >
> >     Brian
> >
> > >
> > > I do not like the "disable Privacy"-flag thinking at all and I really
> > > oppose going with that solution.
> > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > ipv6@ietf.org
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------