IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses for the network)

"Manfredi (US), Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> Sun, 26 January 2020 21:39 UTC

Return-Path: <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.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 DA9ED120048 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 13:39:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=boeing.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 hRkA-8P6Y4ei for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 13:39:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.144.163]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D81A9120043 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 13:39:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id 00QLdXri004065; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 16:39:33 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=boeing.com; s=boeing-s1912; t=1580074773; bh=Doopv7oyNeY1nlQQ1An+KZ0uJjL3vKCkDed/ZE6y8c8=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=JwEn7/iPB2rEGSbQoem4nKB91gW2YlJ6nKj8VSvVr24WIrUyF3oYQB2Y6ki4NOEpO 0XBz5ZxhpUbj7M1NVImcW7TivKMGLBHHORxVUaI8780YTZ3S+p9MV4KEaIE4vG7Ev/ XGZDaalgJ467SdsAqEnycR8lQl91b8tFXn/tkNnXiUQ1tcsf7nKYElt13bxKv6d0YX oxoMisjpH1tt6xc7g7bHpRWis3vC8/H2c+SUSbmD73z37vUd12ks4vEbOTKfOlUkog EFgrRGd3fMvnn9DZ9eOQ1+AWZ+ohrdZXv5YA5wk/Ylw1PC5FC645X51Y0rM1DMPn7F yXDsMXhLiUFIA==
Received: from XCH16-01-08.nos.boeing.com (xch16-01-08.nos.boeing.com [144.115.65.218]) by clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTPS id 00QLdVKs003246 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 26 Jan 2020 16:39:31 -0500
Received: from XCH16-01-11.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.39) by XCH16-01-08.nos.boeing.com (144.115.65.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.1779.2; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 13:39:30 -0800
Received: from XCH16-01-11.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::a96c:5d85:1337:4323]) by XCH16-01-11.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::a96c:5d85:1337:4323%4]) with mapi id 15.01.1779.002; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 13:39:30 -0800
From: "Manfredi (US), Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
CC: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses for the network)
Thread-Topic: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses for the network)
Thread-Index: AQHV0zymMOoh9fVx/UeF3ZWMawXZI6f72imAgABut4CAAAeIAIAAAomAgAAPjwCAADlcAIAAWiuAgABoy4CAABkzgIAABBYA///97pA=
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2020 21:39:30 +0000
Message-ID: <31ec4e557f8846599f1161ccdf86348b@boeing.com>
References: <6f2a8e5a-a4f6-219b-d7c8-ba79ed257785@huitema.net> <233CE79D-B9BF-4335-8568-D178BD10CEAC@puck.nether.net> <CABNhwV2faDm=8t8KqNVJ5rWkU8or=0pyGmN8D8OyWj1S9ujVhg@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV2gY71PrjWQBUdtCU2Og_R3QawLNcANgVmov_3vJz4CvQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV2gY71PrjWQBUdtCU2Og_R3QawLNcANgVmov_3vJz4CvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [144.115.204.6]
x-tm-snts-smtp: 8A6DB86D0698A2CC9BE05DD5749387A9A5DF0A649211A9CE97D48CC5AAC743552000:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/poaNkU2WifLBc2P5O34OpJ661do>
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: Sun, 26 Jan 2020 21:39:39 -0000

From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Gyan Mishra

> Microorganisms 2013 presentation
http://download.microsoft.com/download/F/D/F/FDF4CF55-5FDE-4CFF-8539-3662BB5EB7A0/TD13Basel2-43.pptx
>
> So Microsoft, still being a major stakeholder In the desktop OS arena, as stated in the 2013 presentation above, has implemented RFC 4941 starting with Vista with the MD5 randomize generated IID that is stored and persistent across reboot and only changes if the prefix changes with mobility and a new 128 bit address stable address is generated.

This seems like a good default, no? The business about "privacy" concerns not so much the type of privacy that data encryption would provide, but rather, being able to track an individual in his/her travels. Changing the IID only when the prefix changes should prevent that well enough?

Bert

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email