Re: [v6ops] Are we competitive?

["Soni \"They/Them\" L." <[e-mail]>]

On 2022-08-15 20:41, Fernando Gont wrote:
> Hi, Soni,
>
> On 15/8/22 13:07, Soni "They/Them" L. wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> We do not like it when IPv6 enables cross-website tracking in spite of
>> browser-based protections, including the ability to separately identify
>> household/community participants, which would be entirely avoidable if
>> the IPv6 stack had full built-in support for ephemeral addresses and
>> browsers used them per-tab or so.
>
> As with other topics in this thread, this is discussed in:
> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-addressing-considerations-02.html
>
> Feedback welcome ;-)
>
> Thanks!

this is a really late reply but we appreciate this so much. tho we do
wonder if anyone's done any experiments in trying to bring ephemeral
addresses specifically to reality. it's basically conntrack with ipv6
addresses (aka repurposed NAT66 technology) yeah? just with added OS
support...

we wonder then, if they're ephemeral after all, if their negotiation
could be restricted to a link (i.e. between client machine and router,
instead of being chatty with broadcast/multicast domains), or even if
they could be handled entirely by the upstream router (using repurposed
NAT66 technology + some sort of API like UPnP or whatever).

>
> Regards,