Re: addrsel: privacy addresses within/out of a site
Arifumi Matsumoto <arifumi@nttv6.net> Sun, 27 March 2011 06:58 UTC
Return-Path: <arifumi@nttv6.net>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20EEB3A69A0 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Mar 2011 23:58:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.987
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.987 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_55=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RIX2PMSH5PTS for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Mar 2011 23:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from leo.nttv6.net (leo.nttv6.net [192.47.162.93]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D6993A699A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Mar 2011 23:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost.nttv6.net [IPv6:::1]) by leo.nttv6.net (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p2R6wgKX076142; Sun, 27 Mar 2011 15:58:42 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from arifumi@nttv6.net)
References: <alpine.LRH.2.02.1101031151250.23654@netcore.fi> <20110103204031.0c3589b7@opy.nosense.org> <alpine.LRH.2.02.1101031213060.23654@netcore.fi> <4D2223DB.1000708@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D2223DB.1000708@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-Id: <49BBE77F-7339-4916-A005-EC3FE0227709@nttv6.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Arifumi Matsumoto <arifumi@nttv6.net>
Subject: Re: addrsel: privacy addresses within/out of a site
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 15:58:42 +0900
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org, Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 27 Mar 2011 06:58:35 -0000
Hi, Sorry for replying to an oooold thread. A privacy address will also be generated for a ULA prefix, because it is treated just like a global prefix, right ? On 2011/01/04, at 4:30, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Pekka, > > Wouldn't the rule "Use ULA prefix inside the site and PA prefix (with > privacy addresses if desired) otherwise" be simpler? And, by default, > it would prevent the "inside" address being exported by mistake. > > Regards > Brian > > > On 2011-01-03 23:21, Pekka Savola wrote: >> On Mon, 3 Jan 2011, Mark Smith wrote: >>>> "do not use privacy addresses when communicating inside the site [a >>>> set of >>>> designated destination prefixes], use it by default otherwise" >>>> >>> >>> I'd be curious what the benefits are. >>> >>> The only reason I could think of as to why to do this is to be able to >>> associate internal application access logs with internal hosts. At face >>> value that sounds useful, however if you really care about auditing >>> application access and use, it isn't the hosts you need to worry about, >>> but the people behind them - and they can usually easily change hosts. >>> So I think those applications should be using proper AAA to identify the >>> user, rather than using IPv6 host identifiers as very poor substitutes >>> for user identities. >> >> One use case is administrators running ssh, vnc or some such remote >> management to the client OS. The conclusion from looking at various >> similar cases was that systems need to have a well-known (non-privacy) >> IP where they can be reached and run TCP services at, or the privacy IP >> needs to be stored in DNS (not much point in that..). >> >> Also, many site-internal access control mechanisms (for example, >> hosts.allow for ssh, some others for e.g. web browsing) use >> host-specific IPs in addition to other checks. In some cases these >> could be substituted with stronger upper-layer identities e.g with >> certificates. >> >> On the other hand, user identification due to static EU64 is a little >> bit of concern e.g. with web surfing, but this also applies to other >> applications so the issue does not go away with application-specific >> tuning. >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > --------------------------------------------------------------------
- addrsel: privacy addresses within/out of a site Pekka Savola
- Re: addrsel: privacy addresses within/out of a si… Mark Smith
- Re: addrsel: privacy addresses within/out of a si… Pekka Savola
- Re: addrsel: privacy addresses within/out of a si… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: addrsel: privacy addresses within/out of a si… Pekka Savola
- Re: addrsel: privacy addresses within/out of a si… Mark Smith
- RE: addrsel: privacy addresses within/out of a si… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: addrsel: privacy addresses within/out of a si… Arifumi Matsumoto
- Re: addrsel: privacy addresses within/out of a si… Bob Hinden
- Re: addrsel: privacy addresses within/out of a si… Fernando Gont