Re: [dhcwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-06.txt> (Anonym

On 2/16/16 12:26 AM, Christian Huitema wrote:
> On Monday, February 15, 2016 6:53 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> > It's true that this profile mitigates the amount of information that can be 
> > collected. 
> > But in IPv6 we have other configuration methods - such as SLAAC - that 
> > broadcast 
> > way less information than stateless DHCPv6, which in turn broadcasts less 
> > information 
> > than stateless DHCPv6.
> >
> > This document should recognize that at least on IPv6-only networks, it is an 
> > option 
> > not to use DHCP at all, and that option has substantial privacy benefits 
> > that are in 
> > many cases above what this profile can provide.
> Well, section 4 of draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-07 says:
>
>    The choice between the stateful and stateless scenarios depends on
>    flag and prefix options published by the "Router Advertisement"
>    messages of local routers, as specified in [RFC4861].  When these
>    options enable stateless address configuration hosts using the
>    anonymity profile SHOULD choose it over stateful address
>    configuration, because stateless configuration requires fewer      
>    information disclosures than stateful configuration.
>
> That seems pretty close from what you want, at least as far as "stateful 
> DHCPv6" is concerned.
I would agree that the above text covers what I interpret as Lorenzo's
concern.

Regards,
Brian

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature