On 04/03/2012 09:37 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
If the regime controls the local-link, then as far as
address-tracking is concerned, you're toast. -- They could sniff
the network and log the address-MAC mappings, have RAs require you
to do DHCPv6 and then have DHCPv6 assign you a constant address,
On Mar 30, 2012, at 9:20 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
If the regime controls the local-link, then as far as address-tracking is
concerned, you're toast. -- They could sniff the network and log the
address-MAC mappings, have RAs require you to do DHCPv6 and then have DHCPv6
assign you a
On 03/31/2012 07:32 AM, Christian Huitema wrote:
If the regime controls the local-link, then as far as
address-tracking is concerned, you're toast. -- They could sniff
the network and log the address-MAC mappings, have RAs require you
to do DHCPv6 and then have DHCPv6 assign you a constant
I have reviewed draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses and have
already sent some nits direct to the author.
I like this draft.
One of my biggest criticisms of RFC4941 today is that end nodes act
unilaterally, and that due consideration was not made of the needs of
organizations (such as
Ray,
On 2012-03-31 02:04, Ray Hunter wrote:
...
The idea being that authorized persons e.g. law enforcement and network
managers SHOULD be able to correlate activity at a later date (for legal
compliance, logging, fault finding etc.) whilst an attacker or
unauthorized person SHOULD NOT.
If
Brian,
On 03/30/2012 09:47 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2012-03-31 02:04, Ray Hunter wrote:
...
The idea being that authorized persons e.g. law enforcement and network
managers SHOULD be able to correlate activity at a later date (for legal
compliance, logging, fault finding etc.) whilst
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Ray,
On 2012-03-31 02:04, Ray Hunter wrote:
...
The idea being that authorized persons e.g. law enforcement and network
managers SHOULD be able to correlate activity at a later date (for legal
compliance, logging, fault finding etc.) whilst an attacker or
If the regime controls the local-link, then as far as address-tracking is
concerned, you're toast. -- They could sniff the
network and log the address-MAC mappings, have RAs require you to do DHCPv6
and then have DHCPv6 assign you a
constant address, etc.
The obvious solution is to
Hi, Tassos,
Thanks so much for your comments. Please find my responses inline
On 03/28/2012 09:26 PM, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou wrote:
I like support the idea, but it's not clear to me the
randomness/stableness of the created identifiers.
Is there a guarantee, that after rebooting or
Folks,
Probably the only objection that I got for
draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses is that the prefix shouldn't be
included in F() (the hash function).
I'd like to clarify the motivation for that, and also trigger some
discussion on the topic such that I can produce a revision of this
I like support the idea, but it's not clear to me the
randomness/stableness of the created identifiers.
Is there a guarantee, that after rebooting or powering-off/on the host,
the produced RID will remain the same if Prefix remains the same?
Is there a way to change the secret key in case
11 matches
Mail list logo
