Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-haddad-momipriv-problem-statement-00.txt]

It's clear that our goal in multi6 is to not create any *new*
privacy issues compared to monohoming. I've haven't had a chance
to read the draft yet, but all we need to do here is check that
question for whatever solution proposal emerges.

     Brian

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 19-okt-04, at 22:18, Wassim Michel Haddad wrote:
> 
>>> This memo describes the privacy in mobility and multi-homing problem
>>> statement.
> 
> 
>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-haddad-momipriv-problem- 
>>> statement-00.txt
> 
> 
> I'm not happy about this singling out privacy issues like this, because  
> it implicitly says "more privacy is better". That's certainly not the  
> case: there needs to be a balance between privacy and accountability.  
> Today, the internet operator community has huge problems with all kinds  
> of abuse conducted by people who manage to hide behind other's systems  
> they managed to corrupt. We can't have privacy extensions make these  
> problems worse.
> 
>   "Note that while using only a different IPv6 address for each
>    new session may prevent/mitigate the ability to trace a MN on
>    the IP layer level, it remains always possible to trace it
>    through its device identifier(s) on the MAC layer level and
>    consequently, to learn all IPv6 addresses used by the MN by
>    correlating different sessions, thus breaking any unlinkability
>    protection provided at the IP layer."
> 
> Huh??? This is certainly not universally true.
> 
> Another issue is that the references are all towards drafts and not  
> RFCs. This is very bad because 1. people tend to know the RFCs and not  
> necessarily the drafts and 2. drafts disappear after a while.
> 
>