Subject: RE: Comments on <draft-dupont-ipv6-rfc3041harmful-00.txt>

From: "Richard Draves" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:03:51 -0700

Even if the adversary somehow knows there is only one machine per
subnet, I think RFC 3041 still enhances privacy.

First, it hides the manufacturer of your network card.

Second, it prevents the adversary from tracking usage of the network
card across multiple subnets. This is important for mobile devices.

Rich

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:11:05 -0700

> card across multiple subnets. This is important for mobile devices.

I thought the goal was to protect people's privacy and obviously I was 
wrong... ;-)

What 3041 achieves is to make traceability in IPv6 the same as 
traceability
in IPv4+NAT. One can track my IPv6 prefix/household identifier the same 
way
one can track the IPv4 global address of my NAT box/house hold identifier
  but no one can say that I'm typing this message from a computer with
a <foobar> nic.

	- Alain.

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 10:30:25 +0200

In your previous mail you wrote:

=> I agree but I still have two major concerns about RFC 3041:
 - one could believe the privacy benefits of RFC 3041 are much higher
   than they are (the I-D/rfc3041bis(*) is very frank about the
   limitations).
 - RFC 3041 (or any random IID scheme) makes the "in-prefix" source
   address spoofing very easy. Perhaps this is not an important issue
   but IMHO this must be described in the security considerations.

=> if I need this I'll just use the IID ::1...

=> this is the second case: I tried to make clear this works only
when the subnet prefix(es) *and* the interface ID are changed at
the same time.

Thanks

[email-masked]

PS (*): draft-ietf-ipngwg-temp-addresses-v2-00.txt is fine but
is expired. IMHO we really need a revision of RFC 3041!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------