Re: [Pidloc] PIdLoc Webex

[Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>]

> Dino,
> 
> Just run your mapping system in a closed and presumably secured
> network. Every service provider can run their own mapping system and
> there's no need or value to build global mapping databases.

Yes, of course. That has always been an opiton and many enterprises are doing that today.

> 
>> That’s the best any design can hope for. The IP header can only be sent in the clear.
>> 
> In order to communicate with Internet hosts plain text addresses are
> used in packets. The are identifiers in idloc terminology and they are

In headers in particular. I hope you agree it can be avoided in payloads.

> exposed to the whole Internet. It's the privacy properties of these
> that are of interest. For instance, today many service providers
> assign a /64 to their users. So, that means that if a third party on
> the Internet observes two flow with source addresses sharing the same
> sixty-four bit prefix they can deduce that the source is the same (the
> same user in case of personal devices). What is really needed for
> privacy is to use a different uncorrelatable address per flow. Under

Agree.

> certain conditions, CGNAT provides that today which is why law
> enforcement agencies are terrified of it. In lieu of NAT, idloc could
> key to provide this privacy without resorting to NAT. See
> draft-herbert-ipv6-prefix-address-privacy-00.
> 
> Tom

Understand. But randomized addresses assign to tail site can still be achieved without the high-cost of managing a CGNAT. You only need to route back to that randomized/ephemeral address for a short period of time. In fact, the ISP can withdraw the route when it wants the tail site to use another address.

Dino