[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Comments on draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-01

On 10-jun-04, at 20:30, Erik Nordmark wrote:

(a possibility could be to include the current level of privacy support
in IPv6, just as the other current state of the art are presented.) 

Good point.
I guess we can start with IPv4 where in some cases (dialup being the
prime example) the IPv4 addresses change over time.

But sometimes it stays the same for very long periods of time.

In IPv6 the temporary addresses RFC provide a way to make it
harder to correlate packets from the same machine over time.

Which can also be quite problematic in certain situations (DoS, for instance). The original intention of RFC 3041 was to make sure that when a host moves from one prefix to another, its correspondents can't track it by the interface identifier that stays the same. Being able to hide within a subnet prefix that doesn't change is an extra feature. Not being able to support this feature doesn't automatically disqualify a multihoming solution, IMO.

So I think the "do no harm" criteria means that the introduction
of multihoming support should still provide the same ability as we
have in IPv6 with temporary addresses.

We can't let ourselves be constrained by arbitrary features of the current architecture. If the features are important, sure, we must support them. But having to do so just because it can be done today makes has the potential to disqualify very useful multihoming solutions without good reason.