Re: [v6ops] Google Alert - IPv6

Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> Mon, 30 October 2017 14:48 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@herbertland.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 445F513ACAB for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:48:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 AUv0uxjbhTfx for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22d.google.com (mail-qt0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D12F13FA1C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id 1so16675172qtn.3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+f84zAnfRSHG6hwUkH1lX/ChR7Pa9SpJNcyayXczkWU=; b=Es9lPJDYvTLf7lm9tKH0kA5lhvWixmPssGwlgE3qsoNjMoTmqYyqiWHlyH7HO2luKB Cj2tT9a/C2cpAFfAuI3Wi9O/J0kyxkIyLSaYZ0bfFD9MYU4vTzjMx80IhHqZYn2b/iad y7x0mVkESWexda4QwMDQo9i0dNCAwktWPITm9v5O3gE+iG3ay7+Amk8Cc2fSi179y3rO xg9O0PUhRU1n+xh7CzNx5mFJUnGd37wIIYSclqDT5aI4rhKY6Z+vQigq+bJ8adZOlfCv mOHUNWG7KpSox/gZ4yQlebk0M9Xn1+er0JxwEfS5zWl1y05kiV2lO46Bimj9sMsPhn/v 1rpA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+f84zAnfRSHG6hwUkH1lX/ChR7Pa9SpJNcyayXczkWU=; b=K0idzJAkEufCyGGqkItv2IV8wToBdIJfHcm8LfNeZPgK8xTntE/ftxhNr91TSFgRVZ rLGcYNXHdjMTtr6F/k2HCAZ0jkxxeBs3rXr+CB37HaLGj6EVWZp1p2g9dE+JhEjilA4V 0/Jfm6isZ/6fQ+9AAzRguQXtaL08xOJ1i7UbXezEOlX6dfv906/jl/OR9CdxqCWVyc+f 8da/w2vKOZQrB3ks/zWZ1IVJj+Sp4GmmyoN1KANFXHbafn5KG3JkQ0R/xt3P86opNrQY srn43vZ1wTL2jruuVXesMgMWxzrkbsF190DyfaIj8R9xEMjsW0gfiSBNGd/t/0lkVSoE eb1A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaXU/mf4rc/n5ZygstpKWVnEeePYHWBwtDt3OV0tYXFOMzXbGRMH uNeJEKRGbaj0QK4d6DVd+Py4W6YFXAkPrJfwb5629uiH
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+SqZ89VvSpbcJYwwle8t0usOPBt7bT/skbyP/kiMZ258RZcVNpjYCJx5JBk2L7Oreo8HP8pVi3lnGv6bgRfwG4=
X-Received: by 10.237.37.8 with SMTP id v8mr14995399qtc.275.1509374914317; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.237.54.4 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <C71D6C23-2720-403F-B655-D8156898A137@employees.org>
References: <f403045ef57ac52962055bd88b84@google.com> <20395E98-DA55-447F-BEFE-CB581A88BB78@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1710190655260.31961@uplift.swm.pp.se> <20171019083506.6627a166@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1710190856530.31961@uplift.swm.pp.se> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A056EB5@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAHw9_iLWAMexrfXwsdB8duGa5ueJMofqVRqNck6DeOzA=KChqA@mail.gmail.com> <C4E37677-A2FB-49F8-B362-C29B28DFD570@daveor.com> <CE4906A4-E0CC-4C3F-A1F8-D2B5BED294D7@employees.org> <EDC5E9C7-F193-40CE-B21C-8E1D91E9E7E3@daveor.com> <C71D6C23-2720-403F-B655-D8156898A137@employees.org>
From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:48:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CALx6S37E9TN9SyMQfk3CSx9vWzjBM3bmuhvsyN0tFXGYFz9Mjw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Cc: Dave O'Reilly <rfc@daveor.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/RTm1DqQH7mKaXSk4U_8YN3EfXGs>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Google Alert - IPv6
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 14:48:37 -0000

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 2:03 AM, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> 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.

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
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>