Re: [v6ops] Interesting problems with using IPv6

[Owen DeLong <[e-mail]>]

On Sep 12, 2014, at 6:56 PM, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.

The purpose of privacy addresses is broken by so many things as to render them an absurd waste in general.

We’ve had this argument before. We’ve agreed to disagree before.

I suppose another viable solution would be to require all privacy addresses to use a common lower 24 bit string. In this way, you’d still have anonymity within the subnet which is all you really get from privacy addresses to begin with.

Owen