Re: [mif] New Version Notification for draft-reddy-mif-dhcpv6-precedence-ops-02.txt

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 23, 2012, at 5:24 AM, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> It makes sense, but the draft doesn't explain that it is only
> intended for use in managed networks where the suppression of
> privacy is considered acceptable. I think this needs to be stated
> in the Introduction, and the issue of (loss of) privacy needs to
> be discussed in the Security Considerations.

It might be worth mentioning in the security considerations section, but it's worth noting that this option increases the user's privacy, rather than decreasing it; users who are known to the local network get temporary addresses; only those users who haven't yet registered do not.

This would only occur on a network with a security policy that forbade privacy addresses in general.   It's already possible to do that with existing DHCP servers, routers and DHCP clients.

The incremental additional privacy may seem trivial, since the user is still being tracked by the local service provider whether they get privacy addresses or not on this network.   However, the user would at least in principle have real and meaningful privacy from being tracked by their IP address by service providers outside the administrative domain of the local network.