Re: [v6ops] Interesting problems with using IPv6

Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Sat, 13 September 2014 01:56 UTC

Return-Path: <fernando@gont.com.ar>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CF7C1A0258 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:56:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 WrtEFD4H7SMJ for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:56:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:8240:6:a::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AB4A1A026F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:56:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [2001:5c0:1000:a::fd5] by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from <fernando@gont.com.ar>) id 1XScZh-0006Ea-99; Sat, 13 Sep 2014 03:56:29 +0200
Message-ID: <5413A448.2030104@gont.com.ar>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 22:56:24 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>, Chuck Anderson <cra@WPI.EDU>
References: <1410082125488.85722@surrey.ac.uk> <540CB702.3000605@gmail.com> <20140908183339.GB98785@ricotta.doit.wisc.edu> <540E26D9.3070907@gmail.com> <1410227735.13436.YahooMailNeo@web162204.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <540ECB9E.9000102@foobar.org> <CAKD1Yr1_sCLHv=D3MeCe47Fa0dxXTXH5B+=wOKpvmEDFkJFiZw@mail.gmail.com> <75B6FA9F576969419E42BECB86CB1B89155AF364@xmb-rcd-x06.cisco.com> <20140909142226.GP15839@angus.ind.WPI.EDU> <101C89B1-019B-4E51-B869-FABC534E6D3D@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <101C89B1-019B-4E51-B869-FABC534E6D3D@delong.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/6MB4mQi1R2OgN_PI2ZZpLeOJ1aI
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Interesting problems with using IPv6
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 01:56:41 -0000

On 09/12/2014 07:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> A potential improvement could be if privacy addressing created a
> persistent random lower 24 bits and only rehashed the upper 40 bits
> of the suffix with each address rotation. In that way, you’d only
> have ~2 ND multicast groups per host.

That would break the sole purpose of privacy addresses. If the lower
24-bits are kept the same, an attacker can correlate the activities of a
node along time.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1