[125764] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Apr 23 01:05:39 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BD04752.9050602@jsbc.cc>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 22:00:35 -0700
To: Jim Burwell <jimb@jsbc.cc>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Apr 22, 2010, at 5:55 AM, Jim Burwell wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 4/22/2010 05:34, Simon Perreault wrote:
>> On 2010-04-22 07:18, William Herrin wrote:
>>> On the other hand, I could swear I've seen a draft where the PC
>>> picks up random unused addresses in the lower 64 for each new
>>> outbound connection for anonymity purposes.
>>
>> That's probably RFC 4941. It's available in pretty much all
>> operating systems. I don't think there's any IPR issue to be afraid
>> of.
>>
>> Simon
> I think this is different. They're talking about using a new IPv6 for
> each connection. RFC4941 just changes it over time IIRC. IMHO that's
> still pretty good privacy, at least on par with a NATed IPv4 from the
> outside perspective, especially if you rotated through temporary IPv6s
> fairly frequently.
4941 specified changing over time as one possibility. It does allow
for per flow or any other host based determination of when it needs a new
address.
Owen
