RE: how much privacy do we need? (was Re: Advantages and disadvantages of using CB64 type of identifiers

"Christian Huitema" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.multi6
Message-ID <DAC3FCB50E31C54987CD10797DA511BA09F21384@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Erik Nordmark
> Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 8:58 AM
> To: Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: Multi6 List
> Subject: Re: how much privacy do we need? (was Re: Advantages and
> disadvantages of using CB64 type of identifiers
> 
> > I'm not sure we have consensus that we even have a privacy goal,
> > except maybe the "do no harm" property compared to RFC 3041.
> 
> FWIW draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-threats tries to capture that
> level, with some additional words about the current state of
> IP address privacy in IPv4 and IPv6.

The draft states:

   Today when a site is multihomed to multiple ISPs the common setup is
   that a single IP address prefix is used with all the ISPs.  As a
   result it is possible to track that it is the same host that is
   communication via all ISPs.

This is correct, but incomplete. When a *host* is multi-homed to several
ISP, e.g. through a GPRS connection and a wireless hot spot, the host is
provided with different IP addresses on each interface. I know that
multi6 studies "site" multi-homing, but I also know that the various
wedge solutions can potentially be used for host multi-homing scenarios
as well, and I am worried about that.

We may also observe that a common practice in site multi-homing in IPv4
is to use some form of address translation, effectively hiding the
identity of the specific host within a site.

-- Christian Huitema
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.