I-D: Router Advertisement Based Privacy - draft-rafiee-6man-ra-privacy
"Hosnieh Rafiee" <ietf@rozanak.com> Tue, 18 June 2013 17:33 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@rozanak.com>
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 4660721E8091 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:33:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0IlSK+vwn2B9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:33:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47ADD21E8094 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:33:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kopoli (e179167165.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.179.167.165]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus2) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0Lmrky-1UNKzk2d4O-00h7Jz; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:33:08 -0400
From: Hosnieh Rafiee <ietf@rozanak.com>
To: ipv6@ietf.org, Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Subject: I-D: Router Advertisement Based Privacy - draft-rafiee-6man-ra-privacy
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:33:01 +0200
Message-ID: <000601ce6c49$e54415e0$afcc41a0$@rozanak.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01CE6C5A.A8D0B670"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: Ac5sSVc53hvL+z6/TKaGkCODj9IxFw==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:7G9U4NnndWCzH4kT58zHE81h+hZNBE9zwarbcP15yYG 0zK11Af+cvJYi3mCwiC/+ooZlObr2Nc8FJU+yw3hFW/4Mco8CL t6cLXNqrNDNPzmRaM9iR54FRc8Fx71TF9YCZUFZO1HVJEtUGVI cqOGluPr7LzF3hWczEXT4neMorMOYn//ddT0Xb0m9Uyxi2Clkt VLz86NKja0rnUZd/tYJkTIOpLop5ednrlwa6J5xpa0a3d/Wx6W iUaIEZhpbLQ1PaLwu5qiqYSTYKrBXcrpYJWzibnOAVZopT4HVo fL+hziO3sDFgqEXWRZMcpju6DSoagG9p6WvGZmG+7RNpbVwFMn 0xAXtnmzuowBiyT1YbjM=
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:33:20 -0000
I have improved the document and also clearly explained the problems that this document addresses in the Introduction section. I also improved the algorithm for IID lifetime, which is now a conditional application based lifetime. <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rafiee-6man-ra-privacy-04> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rafiee-6man-ra-privacy-04 Abstract: Privacy is an important issue which concerns many governments and users, with its importance becoming more evident every day. Nodes change their IP addresses frequently in order to avoid being tracked by attackers. The act of frequently changing IP addresses also helps to prevent the leakage of information by nodes. In IPv6 networks there is currently one solution for maintaining the privacy of nodes when IPv6 StateLess Address AutoConfiguration (SLAAC) (RFC 4862) is used. Unfortunately there are some problems associated with this solution which entails the use of the Privacy Extension (RFC 4941). One of the issues with this RFC concerns the wording that is used which allows the implementation to make the choice as to what approach to use and in so doing, in some cases, the choice made is not the most prudent or best approach and this is not ideal and can cause some problems. Some of these problems are concerned with not generating a new Interface ID (IID) after changing the router prefix. Another concern would be the fact that nodes may use an IID that was generated based on a MAC address as a public address, and then use this in their response. The act of cutting the current connections to other nodes, if the max lifetime of the old IID has elapsed, is also not clearly explained nor is whether or not the already used IID should be kept in stable storage, There is also a concern about the need to have stable storage available for the generation of a randomized IID. The RFC gives no explanation as to how to make use of CGA in its randomizing solution when stable storage is not available or how to use the same approach for random value generation in all implementations where there is a lack of stable storage. The purpose of this document is to address these issues, to update the current RFC and to introduce a new algorithm for the lifetime of IID. Please take a look and share your comments. Thanks, Regards, Hosnieh
- I-D: Router Advertisement Based Privacy - draft-r… Hosnieh Rafiee