Re: [v6ops] Google Alert - IPv6

[Mark Smith <[e-mail]>]

On 31 Oct. 2017 01:48, "Tom Herbert" <[e-mail]> wrote:

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 2:03 AM, Ole Troan <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
>>> Major comment:
>>> 3) The document talks about identifying an individual, and in places a
subscriber endpoint. What it does identify, is the _originating network_.
What you get is the public interface address of the customer CPE. Which
looks like a network from the inside.
>>> Make it very clear that this does not identify individual hosts. And it
might be worth noting that traffic my enter the originating network from
outside. E.g. through VPNs, TOR exits, shared WIFI and whatnot.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I completely agree.
>>
>> I do address this point in the -01 revision scope section:
>>
>> "Clearly no single solution will address the problem of crime
attribution on the Internet.  Load balancers, proxies and other network
infrastructure may also, intentionally or as a side-effect, obfuscate the
true source of Internet traffic and these problems will continue to exist
with or without the presence of large-scale address sharing technologies
(like Carrier-Grade NAT and A+P).”
>>
>> I wanted to mention the point without getting dragged into details of
all of the possible scenarios where an IP address does not represent an
individual or subscriber endpoint (apart from CGNAT). I was of the opinion
that there is a risk of trying to “boil the ocean” with a  document like
this so I was trying to keep the focus as tightly as possible on the issues
raised by CGNAT.
>>
>> In light of this, do you think this needs to be more explicitly
discussed or clarified?
>
> I think that's fine.
> As long as you make it clear that:
>  - the IP address _never_ identifies an individual.

Ole,

I don't think this is something that can be part of the definition of
an IP address, it's more of a desirable property of how IP addresses
are assigned and used. For instance, a smartphone is given an IP
address and technically identifies the host. But given that there is a
likely one to one correspondence between personal device (and its
address) to an individual user, the IP address of the device
effectively identifies the individual or at least can be used with a
little more information to do so. In this case, the IP address seems
to be Personally Identifiable Information.



The trouble is, unless we hand-cuff devices to people, the binding between
a device and an individual isn't very strong. It is quite easy for a device
to be shared, intentionally or not, with more portable (and therefore
stealable,) devices making the coupling even weaker.

I think attribution of an action is an authentication problem. Machine
identifiers aren't very good analogues for individuals' identify and
authenticity. In the "what you have, what you are, and what you know" group
of authentication factors, I think the "what you have" is the weakest.

There really needs to be something else that supports or proves use of a
device other than an assumption that an IP address is tightly coupled to a
device's owner, and therefore all actions associated with an IP address are
those of the device's owner.

Regards,
Mark.


Tom

>  - it identifies a host, a source network, or the obfuscated result of a
TOR gateway, VPN, another NAT, LB etc, etc...
>
> But never, ever by itself an individual person.
>
> Best regards,
> Ole
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops