Re: Consensus call on adopting: <draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01>

Fernando Gont <> Thu, 19 April 2012 20:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3173421F85AA for <>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 13:18:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.641
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.641 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.960, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H3NsF3onyG9A for <>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 13:18:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2a02:27f8:1025:18::232]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55BC221F85A8 for <>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 13:18:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [2001:5c0:1000:a::355] by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from <>) id 1SKxnd-0000ss-2Z; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 22:17:53 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:17:41 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <>
Organization: SI6 Networks
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20120313 Thunderbird/3.1.20
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eliot Lear <>
Subject: Re: Consensus call on adopting: <draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 6man Chairs <>, IPv6 WG Mailing List <>, Bob Hinden <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 20:18:03 -0000

On 04/19/2012 10:34 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> It's not an argument against RFc4941, but rather an argument that even
>> with RFC4941, you still need to do something about the IEEE-based IIDs.
>> At the Paris IETF, some folks argued that if you have RFC 4941 in place,
>> you don't need draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses. Section 7 of
>> draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses (which should be an Appendix,
>> rather than a section in the main body of the document) illustrates that
>> that's not the case: even if you're employing RFC4941, you're still
>> subject to host-scanning attacks and host tracking.
> Well, host scanning at least.  Host tracking depends on the implementation.

Not sure what you mean. If you don't do
draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses, you do either IEEE-derived
IIDs, or the randomized-but-stable-across-networks Windows IIDs. -- And
as long as you have stable-across-networks IIDs, you can be tracked.

>> How do you arrive to the conclusion that people might want to use this
>> instead of CGAs??
>> As noted in the I-D tihs mechanism is meant to be a replacement for IIDs
>> based on IEEE identifiers. This is orthogonal to RFC4941 and orthogonal
>> to CGAs.
> I know what you mean.  That matters less than how other people make use
> of the work.

We can't produce specs for people that cannot read and understand specs.
draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses solves a real and existing problem.

To me, "people using draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses instead of
CGAs" makes as much sense as "people using
draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses instead of TCP" -- I don't even
know how that might happen, and I've not heard your reasoning of why
that might happen.

Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492