On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 8:48 AM Kyle Rose <kr...@krose.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 3:34 PM, Christopher Wood > <christopherwoo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 8:05 AM Tommy Pauly <tpa...@apple.com> wrote: >> > >> > Yes, I'm inclined to agree—I think that having a unique address per >> > connection shouldn't be the default; an application could certainly always >> > set it if it wants to decrease linkability? >> >> Applications should not have to opt-in to better privacy. Decreased >> linkability should be the default. So if doing this per-connection is >> shown (not just believed) to be infeasible, then per-application is a >> reasonable compromise. > > > The problem is that it might not be a dichotomy between "feasible" and > "infeasible". What if the tradeoff is increased connection latency from > acquiring a new address (either by DHCP or SLAAC/DAD)? What if it increases > network load from neighbor discovery so much that the LAN visibly slows down?
I would consider that infeasible, then. Note that I am simply advocating for a change in mindset wherein we consider privacy first at marginal costs. I realize that's an unpopular opinion. > I would argue that the default should be BCP for the network architecture in > question, whatever that is, and leave the determination of BCP to those SMEs. That might work, too. Best, Chris _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list Taps@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
