IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Address privacy

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Thu, 30 January 2020 18:03 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 46170120808 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 10:03:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 kLW-ymvU8xHZ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 10:03:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf35.google.com (mail-qv1-xf35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f35]) (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 C353F120811 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 10:03:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf35.google.com with SMTP id y8so1933052qvk.6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 10:03:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=SXQO0xx6/ousXkXhaO9VjIiGq79r5TQgu91j833Lw/4=; b=oQnHhLJN1uPJEnlWguDIzDIXkoNuv0jvB/CSefNvuxRzadEVo7W513x0q5p5AIGsOb HxyXp+TCCQ0ABPWbVDpNhdnQpgEZKTpmbf9EO3IL/xkO7bTfRq4o7O5OZGJdhZbrjfzv MzGtzgFQCIlK/sOpZzLgILYY7RtNzLRF+xTQ4dVXytIorAzHOiqBD5qtjVvxHZgnStZM +8BNV2v7BhJhhsmsEsb64Zb+uwKNXTP9pzZ+R7ebB6uArjNlOKRd3d1ddG2D0/3T6sHd PAlCX4VN2nF16D9eZKb7X9F2y5F9TgkjoTOOrYW4ohXeYz7FJd8ndy1gvgK9GjqwyKeL 6C3A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=SXQO0xx6/ousXkXhaO9VjIiGq79r5TQgu91j833Lw/4=; b=Yahd3CauEe0+hJZg+ZUpI/4yZ0G+UZmhpSWaD9v3FFTwxSHd2OL+obdQmcvmK2br/j skjiz1SMOZt1PpIA8sZChh0SEu+EtvscLRNOiyPA2lNskpMVIg+RBPMFODNZYafGJ/Z6 ZjQrnZ7KmShtvTJY9QUpyCA4EZDU/lqPOm43r/3uTBCe5SDxc8kajO6r27JXGdQau5pH bWCKeCGngW/xS58jyHIYeMytqUlyhO1CkMd+kwssF4sIrC+3gqA+qgNzMBqfj95+iueJ olSF386pqENRXC8WtPZ3G+fyHgYUMQPuSWwCVkl49+XKBH0JGR39Xs11WucaHqe4IDbQ DVcg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXczrRGOSdNp3LAg3BHvzufF2Z32c7evIyfCPCKsmsTNUFGLDOA sx9+6MDl+Ce6x9vQ8OZRWDXm3Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyfZu/HGx2zT2dnLFMlYK7CVT0t1vCdq30i9P+huO95BRNpesjwFLHyZCoGAaIjqsa0hs8XcQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:4f2:: with SMTP id cl18mr5937703qvb.89.1580407387799; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 10:03:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18b:300:36ee:e1a3:df27:2daf:b914? ([2601:18b:300:36ee:e1a3:df27:2daf:b914]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d9sm3277317qtw.32.2020.01.30.10.03.06 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 30 Jan 2020 10:03:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <EEBE5FB2-3CBA-412C-968A-E9EE8416F217@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CA320A60-9BD7-4F86-8A3E-16AAABBC414B"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.13.2.1\))
Subject: Re: Address privacy
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 13:03:05 -0500
In-Reply-To: <28618.1580407210@dooku>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
References: <03C832CE-7282-4320-BF1B-4CB7167FE6BE@employees.org> <MN2PR11MB3565330989D411525D30B90DD80F0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <80207E17-AE8E-4D19-B516-D2E6AB70721E@employees.org> <8D5610EA-49D3-483E-BB7A-67D67BC89346@jisc.ac.uk> <DE7B0688-230F-4A5C-8E24-9EAED9FD9FEB@puck.nether.net> <CAO42Z2zXwVnzemRqyqy78czpHjZm0nhkCJgVrx=-fmt+C6MnSA@mail.gmail.com> <1962.1579823388@localhost> <f83ab037-9125-bb74-dbac-68850aeb1020@huitema.net> <CBB23ABE-A7A3-4208-873C-E47EE063E34B@fugue.com> <11855.1579980079@localhost> <CALx6S36V_VjaxhELYcsgDYLWsCkj20p6gtiY9T9Q=9-9Oibyjw@mail.gmail.com> <32626.1580060558@localhost> <CALx6S37prWACD0jv9c-XHD-JtPqZAcgeT2Ax0EZHkiQaDR4t=g@mail.gmail.com> <419b7c7a-e364-7951-5a44-6c39e1da65fb@joelhalpern.com> <CALx6S36802oDaEgojAPq2c6hM_s1BayidXPh1Sc6RZmZa9UHpQ@mail.gmail.com> <6c5ba72d-9289-90ba-a1c9-2307ed29a4da@foobar.org> <a98bf2ab-32e7-459b-14d2-5e0e1c65a229@si6networks.com> <CALx6S36J5TPnXJQyMW2NUbQV6KL_oqUQ01m+BEzBJ+xcHpmQWw@mail.gmail.com> <bc 0d1eb8-2301-224d-dc33-19f6a60e593e@si6networks.com> <CALx6S34i67ivt8t1P3omRVzsj9NfxY2t41JLjmjT6X0vtBQHKQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGTDPAM_FjMODUDAdeZthMD78vCydQNYLTFCVwyK5JnYmg@mail.gmail.com> <28618.1580407210@dooku>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.13.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/rbmE7adJhL5Oc8VDu9EHpP7eBGQ>
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: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 18:03:15 -0000

On Jan 30, 2020, at 1:00 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>> Anecdotally, i would say unequivocally yes at a large scale eyeballs
>> network, random iid has materially improved security of the host. 
>> The
>> inability to do network scanning is huge.
> 
> This feels like an anecdotal observation.

Furthermore, it’s mathematically simply wrong or else a non-sequitur.   If I have N addresses out of a space M, my chance of getting hit randomly is N/M.  So the more temporary addresses I have, the higher the change of a probe hitting me.

Contrariwise, if my address contains a predictable value, then that relationship no longer holds.   So the IID really does need to be randomly generated.   And then the fewer addresses I have, the less risk of getting probed.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email