Hi, > On 13 May 2017, at 18:41, Jan Zorz - Go6 <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 13/05/2017 10:16, Jens Link wrote: >> Jan Zorz - Go6 <[email protected]> writes: >>> Draft version 2 is now available for reading at >>> https://sinog.si/docs/draft-IPv6pd-BCOP-v2.pdf >> >> I like but I don't see it happening. >> >> 1. Stable Addresses - Data protection people will have a hart attack >> when they read this. As will many customers. Don't get me wrong I >> *do* want a stable prefix at home but many people don't. Changing >> addresses gives them some pseudo anonymity and the warm feeling that >> they are not traceable and secure. > > Data protection people will have to learn how technology works and stop > breaking IPv6 deployments with enforcing bad practices from IPv4 world. > WE dynamically changed IPv4 address because we started running out of > them, not to ensure anonimity. That warm fuzzy feeling is made-up > collateral damage that was never even a intent ;) > > As Jordi mentioned, traceability starts on L7 and it doesn't matter how > much you change addresses, you'll be trackable. > > For reference, try it on https://panopticlick.eff.org/ > > Click, change address, click again.
But we should not do anything to preclude privacy-enhancing methods being applied at any layer. I would argue that the BCOP text should say: a) ISPs are encouraged to support both stable (persistent) and privacy-oriented (non-persistent) prefixes as options for customers; b) stable/persistent prefixes are recommended as the default, in the absence of legal requirements to the contrary in any specific country. I’d also note that the biggest UK IPv6 deployment is a “sticky” /56 to residences; it’s hard for an ISP to guarantee a lifetime stable prefix, but they can take steps to minimise the likelihood of a change being needed. Tim
