Re: dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Aug 3, 2011, at 10:53 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Owen DeLong" <owen () delong com>
>
> > On Aug 3, 2011, at 6:55 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> > > You guys aren't *near* paranoid enough. :-)
> > >
> > > If the ISP
> > >
> > > a) Assigns dynamic addresses to customers, and
> > > b) changes those IPs on a relatively short scale (days)
> > >
> > > then
> > >
> > > c) outside parties *who are not the ISP or an LEO* will have a
> > > relatively harder time tying together two visits solely by the IP
> > > address.
> >
> > ROFL... Yeah, right... Because the MAC suffix won't do anything.
>
> Did I mention I haven't implemented v6 yet? :-)

No, you didn't. Perhaps you should spend some time learning about
it before you opine on how it should or should not be implemented.

FWIW, I have implemented IPv6 in multiple organizations, including
my home where I've been running with it for several years.

> *Really*?  It bakes the endpoint MAC into the IP?  Well, that's miserably
> poor architecture design.

It can and it is a common default. It is not required.

It's actually rather elegant architecture design for the goals it was
implemented to accomplish.

> > > While this isn't "privacy", per se, that "making harder" is at least
> > > somewhat useful to a client in reducing the odds that such
> > > non-ISP/LEO
> > > parties will be unable to tie their visits, assuming they've
> > > controlled
> > > the items they *can* control (cookies, flash cookies, etc).
> >
> > Which is something, what, 1% of people probably even know how to do,
> > let alone practice on a regular basis.
>
> Yup; let's go out of our way to penalize the smart people; that's a 
> *great* plan; I so enjoy it when people do it -- and they do it *far*
> too often for my tastes.

No, my point is that if you use RFC-4193, there's not really much benefit
from altering the prefix, so, nobody gets penalized and you can still have
static addresses.

Further, I consider myself relatively smart and by not having static prefixes,
you're blocking things I want, so, arguably dynamic prefixes also penalize
the smart people.

> > > Imperfect security != no security, *as long as you know where the
> > > holes are*.
> >
> > If people want this, they can use RFC-4193 to just about the same
> > effect. The ISP modifying the prefix regularly simply doesn't do much.
>
> I'll make a note of it.

Let me know if you have further questions.

Owen

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: