Re: [Pidloc] PIdLoc Webex

Dino Farinacci <> Wed, 05 December 2018 22:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 275AF130E03 for <>; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 14:42:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l5sHVtYHZ5iQ for <>; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 14:42:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 961D2130E14 for <>; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 14:42:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id u6so10706219pfh.11 for <>; Wed, 05 Dec 2018 14:42:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=FCzNeiQlblBKPhJvcDXphy0ipq23Kmm3jPNzkul2hWE=; b=jGXOdvKZ43LoyMqptdbYzaE7VmInbdDaPAJIoSLOUe8BPnzqWoQy+sjpXIwtvIgb09 ASdf9a3rjoM0iQtOaLeJS8zQchsZbVy9Alp5WtAvcMqd7i1H0o3Nc3ucSfp8Lutjs6bB rop5kWGX6mvvbwppTpTUo+BesQgxgn0djQrqCYLMOSgkwHNMo0RM2w4hICRUJiBjLdG5 XH4iiT5mQboD+xFpuHeA1OPUSTlp2FWzKerqiZ3YVoB3BvtOO9hadKbxqY5kiY0t3l2y gyX/6owSbLZJqg1MCpBu6GlNHyrj+3bWyUN4O/U6g5CszNFsXHjzkIQWkJ4Cd/OEph31 5n1A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=FCzNeiQlblBKPhJvcDXphy0ipq23Kmm3jPNzkul2hWE=; b=lGSDRqUTLFWcw6xD0bIumpt4VHXGV/a5rJdFMzxRY0cCYWFMVgOvy9oS1P8nuI3ET1 1cO73+CslLZG1B/tqL2ZRWszZ+DI1tZZOZ275VZJBKI/Q5RS5aEwUWFqXQrCbg4ClmXb Lcw5rZIGZticLO7bsP5v0a41b7Cc46rg45rpkVSewrm+u7a1einbkuqobMaQzJbKCzbC Tu3h4QLUFs2lCkdwTeiowtT3Oha2dMWELuZChDJZkuFQ431hw+3Au+Vs2AU1uGQjbisi RiQrtcZcqgAD8Tk8BG0hcyszETrVOtkl1sSdjwRTJqj5yTSSAcCdQiJx1dxXWrMkYHNz VVSg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWahCfZPk/hvhn8CZIbPEe1Op6gBl+49RjVOHluPKiLZy/rdYEGU Xqpc20GMtNqmzFntUHiqY7Y=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/W5v6q2AAkhA/09/7S4yYG6JXBjgIyJ/LVwCs5QFTdLTdA0C9zwEVCObzHKZWsHaIuZTPpxug==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:7504:: with SMTP id q4mr25714726pfc.180.1544049731059; Wed, 05 Dec 2018 14:42:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dino-macbook.lan ( []) by with ESMTPSA id g11sm26710554pfo.139.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 05 Dec 2018 14:42:10 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Dino Farinacci <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 14:42:08 -0800
Cc:,, Saleem Bhatti <>, Shunsuke Homma <>, Behcet Sarikaya <>, Luigi Iannone <>,,
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
To: Tom Herbert <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Pidloc] PIdLoc Webex
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2018 22:42:13 -0000

> 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


> 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.