I do not think the issue here is privacy or lack of interest in the same. It is ensuring capacity is managed appropriately. Further, allocating static blocks to everyone has an entirely different set of impacts that go much deeper in the network beyond the home.
========================================= John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable m) 484-962-0060 e) [email protected] o) 609-377-6594 w) www.comcast6.net ========================================= -----Original Message----- From: Michael Thomas <[email protected]> Date: Friday, February 22, 2013 7:37 AM To: Ted Lemon <[email protected]> Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <[email protected]>, Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Mark Townsley <[email protected]>, Dave Taht <[email protected]>, Jari Arkko <[email protected]>, John Jason Brzozowski <[email protected]>, "[email protected] Group" <[email protected]>, David Lamparter <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [homenet] Running code in Orlando >Ted Lemon wrote: >> On Feb 21, 2013, at 8:34 PM, Michael Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Sigh all you like, but I share Dave's skepticism that ISP's >>>renumbering my prefix >>> willy-nilly and it just sort of works with naming -- including >>>addresses squirrelled >>> away in places they ought not be -- is going to work any time soon. I >>>don't like to >>> think that NAT is inevitable but frankly the people in this working >>>group don't get >>> to vote on that. >> >> It's probably also worth mentioning that in general ISPs that do this >>on a regular basis are attacking their customer's network, and the >>resulting instability is not the result of a failing on our part, but >>deliberate action on the part of the ISP. >> >> There are countries where ISPs are required by law to _offer_ a change >>of address every 24 hours for privacy purposes. At least in the cases >>I'm aware of, ISPs don't _force_ this on their customers, but rather >>it's a configuration option paranoid customers can choose, which may >>default to on. This is an inconvenience to ISPs, because it causes >>address pool churn, and requires a lot of extra bits to be allocated to >>PE devices to accommodate all the deprecated addresses. >> >> Pretty much by definition, if you want to access your washing machine >>while away from home, you're throwing that particular sort of privacy >>right out the window. It wasn't buying you much anyway--fuzzing the >>prefix by a few bits is very easy to reverse, and because of routing >>hierarchies, IPv6 prefixes can't be assigned to the customer out of the >>ISP's entire address space--by definition they will be restricted to >>localities. >> >> The other use case for frequent renumbering is an ISP who wants to >>prevent the customer from setting up servers. The washing machine is a >>server. Either the ISP succeeds, or fails, but in either case, they >>are acting directly against the customer's wishes. We can try to >>design a system that's robust with respect to attacks like this, but in >>practice the best way to address this problem is to prevent it happening >>on a regular basis to people who will care about it. > >Is there any way to convince the powers that be that v6 address privacy >is a better/acceptable solution than >prefix-based privacy? Is there really anything that needs to be done for >v6 on that account other than just >switching on the, oh say, laptop? > >Mike _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
