Re: Address privacy

[Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 5:00 PM Brian E Carpenter <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 27-Jan-20 10:39, Manfredi (US), Albert E wrote:
> ....
> > 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?
>
> The IID is normally set *before* the host generates its Link Local
> address, which is normally before it starts to listen for RAs from which it
> will learn the current prefix(es).
>
> So you'd have to make the IID for SLAAC independent of the IID for LL
> (which is of course exactly what RFC4941 does).


  Gyan>  Agreed.  So the happy medium achieved for two camps on opposite
ends of the spectrum.

1.  End user privacy on mobile device connected at home or

2.  End user privacy within an enterprise- non existent as IT security and
availability for mission critical applications -IPv6 stability and tracking
ability is the primary objective.

Happy medium achieved:
For both scenarios following RFC 4941 disabling the temporary address and
keeping the modified EUI-64 random IID - provides both privacy with MD5
randomized IID - and with the IID only changing with mobility when you
receive an new RA for SLAAC with mobility from a different subnet which is
what we want from and IT stability perspective.  If you reboot with
permanent storage as most devices have the IID does not change as long as
the prefix is the same.




>
>    Brian
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
-- 

Gyan  Mishra

Network Engineering & Technology

Verizon

Silver Spring, MD 20904

Phone: [phone]

Email: [e-mail]