Re: [Captive-portals] [homenet] [Int-area] [EXTERNAL] Re: Evaluate impact of MAC address randomization to IP applications

On 2020-09-30, at 19:16, Michael Richardson wrote: > > the > adversary There may be more than one. Of course, if you want to attack privacy, being Google or Facebook gives you unique opportunities. That doesn’t mean you don’t want to have a seat belt any more if you have lane-keeping

Re: [Captive-portals] [homenet] [Int-area] [EXTERNAL] Re: Evaluate impact of MAC address randomization to IP applications

Hiya, I don't agree with that conclusion... On 30/09/2020 18:16, Michael Richardson wrote: > My take home from your work is that MAC address randomization is a useless > waste of time. It causes significant costs to the network operator(s) without > actually providing any benefit to the mobile

Re: [Captive-portals] [homenet] [Int-area] [EXTERNAL] Re: Evaluate impact of MAC address randomization to IP applications

Stephen Farrell wrote: >> Stephen Farrell wrote: >> >> > On 29/09/2020 19:41, Michael Richardson wrote: >> It will be good if >> we can get a document from the MAC randomization >> proponents (if >> there is such a group), to explain the thread profile. >> I don't >>

Re: [Captive-portals] [Int-area] [homenet] [EXTERNAL] Re: Evaluate impact of MAC address randomization to IP applications

Hi, these pointers are very useful. Thanks. I would add one more: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8386 We know for a fact that there are protocols out there, even at the application layer, that would thwart efforts to randomize MAC addresses. Of course you'd have to be connected to the same

Re: [Captive-portals] [EXTERNAL] BoF proposal: Evaluate impact of MAC address randomization to IP applications

Yiu, Thank you for your reply. My first two points are about the wiki https://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki where the BoF proponents should