IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default?

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Wed, 29 January 2020 11:59 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 722E71200DF for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 03:59:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 UyMRyav_kUkB for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 03:59:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2c.google.com (mail-io1-xd2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5CA912007C for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 03:59:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2c.google.com with SMTP id s24so16720782iog.5 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 03:59:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=0JIv/vojbDMSmsGD7j4MIEGSYohiFMY1o9un0YW35sY=; b=lB9W3oHf2RAbW702thnvvSC2y+NbfxPoqWRjfBihVUXLo5KgBNOd57aAGv6ACEEylN /zbQf7l/OSGs8Hnt3V3FyjxZg7h4mnBm8O7F60qXCXscJ5HvPmNyofnbu/X2wLrOlYz8 PSnOcROI42NYEsZyS8sWcKEByYNHv9D8pHPcdACALjqnPf4lBkz/rdZR3U37hIvI6jdm 8fqrIQXvCiaB9Mm3jXhlanKlaDzwZNmPxN5zbXuSsqIzDDbNFua4wktKMXaxQrTuAGqh ZrcvcIcD72Hbkn43TTr8ml3VGkcqPDOiuhblm61cJyL+gcoLiE8FMGysqt/NLCvrN6HV /Bww==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0JIv/vojbDMSmsGD7j4MIEGSYohiFMY1o9un0YW35sY=; b=fD4on//tNBXGwc0jzSlazsNovZnPTEtDQ6I0BMtJQhtQ6lHwtTpfopwn3Hcfma+e/j yvMH5lVdUEPRvaMJz75NzyvWo2AdS/T5LJ5G9iccON9dBmAV9H4uEbV4v5J/ItW1IxYZ PH1isdEKr3CAOmIuzbQoCZc2+e/oznA8Az8a13DkRVYEVRN5kwVqUoCPE3VsMZQqYq+Y q0DOgUG0fwluLmP84A+uDKCXQx8valntFStpOBETIUrnr+Al+mojdIaRPdZhtH/ERovm ejVQk9GLeEgiknLl8MbSNho+duK+907XSvuu2V+uoL1wamI5ZvAsyi8kTnHPgaeAUhyk RPtw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVLSzcc6uIb1J0mMq1zsv+qxl0xLpvsmor/R9t5E3jUPFZCDMxk qlr1GoRHQyKBOdhCTR9yCY2LQDD6zO2cHgaDV+KZfQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxH0z2e0jh6QW6ei0MESTbCpTTzyU3iCQqA7swnogYx4saJqaf5MfOIforStGDAfcM3B3IxKsA39GMNKVVzp2U=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:700e:: with SMTP id l14mr21835126ioc.170.1580299185941; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 03:59:45 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAKD1Yr11_SSUkCBuQ3-h+eRg0LPZQdhe+h7f0YZy9TiyRWj6mw@mail.gmail.com> <751D59E0-F60B-4FE1-840F-3FEAB82F618F@huitema.net> <c058863d-9e29-3ddb-a020-0ebadef26ad4@si6networks.com> <CABNhwV0KsKN7LQY2D-BJkCtvB40oZCT65EmOCr0oE56c9g7-aQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr05GqFr1r018qHZev8SB6Gd=zm_45TtuShQH_5PVkXpKw@mail.gmail.com> <56BD2286-D761-44EF-812B-82BAFB380992@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr23BOEQztLyxu8BF4ivVCmX-Aspv6XfAMUHNR=iDp7uKg@mail.gmail.com> <83FE7A0B-DB50-47CB-85DA-507A33CFCD37@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <83FE7A0B-DB50-47CB-85DA-507A33CFCD37@employees.org>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 20:59:34 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr2xE4C3xaXP=b-sxKGV_CnQugjpOVe_xUpRW1sSoLNGCg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default?
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Cc: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009e4c03059d46137e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/gwvHYCl2V6HGizy4WaM1xe9BP2M>
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 11:59:48 -0000

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 8:54 PM <otroan@employees.org> wrote:

> > I'm saying using temporary addresses makes a number of attacks,
> including cross-site tracking, more difficult, infeasible, or defeatable by
> the employee or IT admin. If you believe that to be false, you can always
> try to see if you can get consensus on a document that says that privacy
> addresses are not useful and declares RFC 4941 historic. :-)
>
> Anything you can cite here?


RFC 4941 section 2.1?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email