Subject: Re: [Int-area] My comments on draft-boucadair-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis-04 from the meeting

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:59:06 -0500 (EST)

> From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>

    > there is a legal lobby in Germany arguing publicly-routable IPv6
    > addresses is a threat against privacy...

This is interesting. Can you give some more details?

And exactly do they mean by 'publicly-routable IPv6 addresses' - I would
assume they aren't against 'IPv6 addresses which are routable in the
core', which is what I would assume that means - so they must not like
assigned such things to individual subscribers, or something?

	Noel

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 05:29:47 +0100

> This is interesting. Can you give some more details?

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Datenschuetzer-geben-Empfehlungen-fuer-IPv6-Einsatz-1372096.html

Summary, German privacy commissioners recommend to use the "dynamic
IPv4" concept also for IPv6.  It's an ongoing debate, not a final
verdict.  But if IPs are correctly identified as sensitive data it
has legal (in Germany) consequences for, e.g., logging of IPs.

-Frank (back to lurking)

---

From: Joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 12:59:37 +0800

> assigned such things to individual subscribers, or something?

more like rfc 4291 modified eui64 host-ids

> 	Noel
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:14:40 +1300

Could somebody in Germany please point these commissioners to
RFC 4941?

Could the commissioners also explain how a routing system works
that is based on untraceable locators?

It is well known that there is a legal opinion (NOT a court ruling)
in the EU that IP addresses might be (NOT are) considered to be personally
identifiable information, and therefore might be (NOT are) subject to EU
privacy legislation. As far as I know, users who are not behind a CGN
reveal their IP address (or that of their domestic NAT) every time
they send a packet, so such a legal opinion (if ever confirmed by a
court) would definitively prove that the law is a ass.

None of this is relevant to the *technical* discussion of the current
draft, as far as I can see.

   Brian