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