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
> --------------------------------------------------------------------