Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Apr 22, 2010, at 5:55 AM, Jim Burwell wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 4/22/2010 05:34, Simon Perreault wrote:
> > On 2010-04-22 07:18, William Herrin wrote:
> > > On the other hand, I could swear I've seen a draft where the PC
> > > picks up random unused addresses in the lower 64 for each new
> > > outbound connection for anonymity purposes.
> >
> > That's probably RFC 4941. It's available in pretty much all
> > operating systems. I don't think there's any IPR issue to be afraid
> > of.
> >
> > Simon
> I think this is different.  They're talking about using a new IPv6 for
> each connection.  RFC4941 just changes it over time IIRC.  IMHO that's
> still pretty good privacy, at least on par with a NATed IPv4 from the
> outside perspective, especially if you rotated through temporary IPv6s
> fairly frequently.

4941 specified changing over time as one possibility.  It does allow
for per flow or any other host based determination of when it needs a new
address.

Owen