From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Alexander
Nevalennyy
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 7:45 AM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Topic IPv6
Does anybody want to help me with writing Internet-draft?
It saves emotions and time of a lot of engineers.
I will be glad if somebody help me. Maybe, my idea is not great, but have a
chance as other ideas.
Alexander,
The reaction you have been getting on this list is due to people forgetting
that not everyone has been working on IPv6 for 20+ years. If it were simple
enough for you to dig through the archives of all the conversations on an array
of lists over that time you would find that ideas on your list have been
discussed multiple times in many different contexts.
One issue you might be having with generating interest in creating a draft is
that you have not clearly stated your goal. You listed some technical
approaches as a set, which might imply certain goals, but depending on which
country and set of laws that are being assumed, those are likely to be
different for each person reading them.
To try and bring some focus to this, based on your list I will throw out a goal
that might be where you were heading---
Goal:
Improve law enforcement's ability to track the economic terrorists that abuse
the Internet and its related technologies to attack others.
That may not be what you had in mind, but it is an example of one possible
goal. The feedback that will immediately arise for something like the above is
that it is in direct conflict with someone else's goal of making sure that
'free speech' voices in countries with oppressive governments have a way to use
the Internet without fear.
The IETF has taken a position that its job is creating technologies and that it
is someone else's job to deal with the political implications of those.
All that said, you might be interested in an expired draft:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-hain-ipv6-geo-addr-02.txt
While the goal of that doc was minimizing renumbering events for smaller
organizations when they change providers, it has the side effect of providing
~6 meter targeting for the packet source (excluding use of ToR technologies).
It also removes the political arguments about which organization 'controls'
address prefix allocations by pre-allocating space in a consistent global
standard.
On your point about telephony mapping, most of the people on this list will
tell you that despite the use of numbers rather than letters, the current
implementation of telephone numbers acts more like names and the conversation
will immediately redirect you to DNS.
Finally, your point about SLAAC appears to assume that the device MAC address
is used. While that was the original definition for implementation simplicity,
it was always assumed that other sources would be used over time and that the
only real requirement is that the IID is unique on the local media. To the
point of privacy, it was immediately recognized that a fixed IID would allow
nefarious web sites to track a device's movements throughout the day, so SLAAC
includes a privacy extension which would appear to be in direct conflict with
your other bullet points. Further, if you look at current implementations,
SLAAC may result in what appear to be pseudo-random static values for the IID.
These are generally based on things like the CPU or graphics chip serial number
so they are somewhat consistent over time, but they do not leak information
about which nic vendor an organization has chosen. While those implementations
may still appear to point back to a specific device, th!
e OS vendor would have to provide the algorithm to reverse the IID. Even with
that or nic derived MAC, the courts would likely throw out any attempt to use
that as evidence because I could watch the LAN to see what IID your device was
using, then use that IID somewhere else masquerading as you, and you would then
have to prove you were not at the other location. See RFC 3971 & 2 as an
example mechanism for increasing IID authenticity to limit MAC spoofing. The
point is that if your goal is to allow law enforcement to track to a specific
device, you need to state that. Then be prepared for the onslaught of privacy
advocates that will argue their goals are more important than yours.
If you have a clear goal, and can show that it requires changes to the
protocols, then I would recommend taking that to the ipv6 WG. If your goal
simply requires operational practice documents, then take that to the v6ops WG.
If your goal requires global treaty negotiations, the IETF is the wrong venue...
Tony