In your previous mail you wrote:
In <draft-dupont-ipv6-rfc3041harmful-00.txt> titled "RFC 3041 considered
harmful" Francis argues that rfc 3041 gives no privacy benefit whilst
increasing complexity and making DDoS attacks easier.
=> yes, I maintain my argument (but if you can improve the wording in
order to make it clearer...).
IMO section 2 which states that privacy extensions "... give only complexity
with no benefit" is logically flawed. I quote the relevant sentences from
section 2 below
______________________________
"Note the interface identifier is only the half of the whole
address, and to change the interface identifier when the prefix
remains the same shall not improve the privacy...
=> IMHO this is the basic limitation of RFC 3041: it changes only
one part of the address.
There are only two cases where privacy extensions can be justified:
where the link has a very high number of nodes or ......"
=> this comes from the observation that RFC 3041 is fully useless if
the link has only one node.
______________________________
I argue that the number of nodes on the link has little to do with existence
of privacy for the following reasons:-
Defn: Privacy is achieved if when a node X corresponds with a server S, the
server S cannot 'unambiguously' associate the IP addr for Node X with the
physical machine.
If you agree with the defn.....
=> I disagree. One can track users in place of physical machines, and
may assume long prefixes are associated to a low number of users,
for instance a dialup /48 is associated to at most a family.
Consider a link with 2 nodes (low number of nodes) X and Y each changing its
suffix as prescribed in 3041.
When one of these nodes, Node X contacts a server with addr A1, can the
server later unambiguously associate that IP with this node? The answer is
No; since the other node, node Y could have had the address A1.
The key to the argument is that it is not enough to have a high probability
of association of an address with a physical machine to say that privacy is
broken.
=> no, what we should protect is the privacy of human beings, not of
physical machines. Therefore either both the prefix and the IID are changed,
or there are a large number of users (so physical machines) sharing the
same prefix (i.e., making it useless for tracking purposes).
Regards
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
