Subject: Topic IPv6

From: Alexander Nevalennyy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:49:02 +0300

Thank you for your opinion and fast support, Jordi.

About your points:

1. I am not sure that about privacy. Nobody need your IP while you do not
do something wrong. For instance, a lot of individuals call  via cell
phones without anonymous technologies.
2. Address can be provided for user or company like it is done in cell
phones. You have number for every device and nothing change when you will
go abroad and use roaming service. But it is only my opinion.
3. I meant usage of SLAAC for all ip-addresses (now it is optional).
4. Agree, but I had to provide all information.

Link is below:
http://www.slideshare.net/phdays/ipv6-35204784

Should I try to write to WG called ipsecme?

Regards, Alexander.

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:58:00 +0100

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 04:49:02PM +0300,
 Alexander Nevalennyy <[email-masked]> wrote 

> Thank you for your opinion and fast support, Jordi.

Jordi tried to patiently explain, I'm not sure you can call his
message "support".

> do something wrong.

Usual argument from the police ("if you want privacy, it means you are
a criminal trying to hide something"). You will have a hard time
convincing people to buy it.

> 3. I meant usage of SLAAC for all ip-addresses (now it is optional).

And why? I mean, servers typically use static non-SLAAC addresses. Why
should they change?

> http://www.slideshare.net/phdays/ipv6-35204784

6 slides can hardly be regarded as a proposal worth of IETF time.

> Should I try to write to WG called ipsecme?

Please first learn to respond to emails (instead of starting a new
thread each time).

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:31:00 +0000

> convincing people to buy it.

Whilst true, you also  need to respect the notion that the job of the 
police is to protect
us from the malevolence of some very evil people.

- Stewart

---

From: Alexander Nevalennyy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 17:39:37 +0300

Dear Stephane,

So far as I understood, I asked some help to share my idea to IETF in right
way.
Jordi answered me and it was "support"=help. It would be rude if I said
nothing.

1. Again, it is not about privacy. When you work with IPv6 address, nobody
knows that it was you, like with numbers of cell phones (if you did not
share information).

3. It is important in two ways: identification of device and possibility to
make access only for given device.

6. I have written qualification dissertation about it = 80 pages. However,
I can not translate right now, because of you.

Please, say hello for people, which you do not know. We are here to discuss
but not only criticize (it is too simple).

Regards, Alexander.

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 15:50:39 +0100

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 05:39:37PM +0300,
 Alexander Nevalennyy <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 126 lines which said:

> 1. Again, it is not about privacy. When you work with IPv6 address,
> nobody knows that it was you, like with numbers of cell phones (if
> you did not share information).

You really should read a few texts about privacy. Here, you make the
traditional error of mixing anonymity (no tracability) and
pseudonymity (identifiers which are not your official name). 

> We are here to discuss but not only criticize (it is too simple).

We cannot discuss on the basis of just a few slides. Either you have a
serious proposal, and it can be discussed and criticized, or you just
have a few slides and, then, I can say that I spent as much time on
this proposal as you have spent writing it.

---

From: Alexander Nevalennyy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 18:02:48 +0300

I know differences between anonimity and pseudonymity.
But you told about protect your rights. Working pheudonymously your realize
your rights. Nobody instead of judge can share information IP of individual.
I am opened, but what must I share to provide serious conversation?

---

From: Alexander Nevalennyy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 18:44:48 +0300

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.

2016-11-21 18:02 GMT+03:00 Alexander Nevalennyy <[email-masked]>:

> But you told about protect your rights. Working pheudonymously your
> realize your rights. Nobody instead of judge can share information IP of
> individual.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:38:45 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 21 Nov 2016, Stewart Bryant wrote:

> Whilst true, you also  need to respect the notion that the job of the police 
> is to protect

In theory, fine.  In practice, you have situations where the police are in 
place to protect the corporate revenue of very evil people by brutalizing 
the innocent.  See Dakota Access Pipeline for an example.

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 20:05:27 +0000

On 21/11/2016 19:38, [email-masked] wrote:
> In theory, fine.  In practice, you have situations where the police 
> are in place to protect the corporate revenue of very evil people by 
> brutalizing the innocent.  See Dakota Access Pipeline for an example.
>

If the police are being excessive, then due process needs to be brought 
to bare on the police, and that is something that the population needs 
to do though its legal process. However I remain with the point that 
many innocent and vulnerable people would become victims in the absence 
of an effective police force, and that the role of the police is to 
protect such people.

Stewart

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 15:14:54 -0500 (EST)

> If the police are being excessive, then due process needs to be brought to 
> bare on the police, and that is something that the population needs to do 
> though its legal process. However I remain with the point that many innocent 
> and vulnerable people would become victims in the absence of an effective 
> police force, and that the role of the police is to protect such people.

Right, but in the case I cited (and many many more) the police are 
protecting the law breakers, who are drilling without federal permits on 
land that is not theirs.  Right now.  As we speak.  The rightsholders are 
being shot with rubber bullets and sprayed with water in 20 degree 
weather.  This is not the rule of law.

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 12:16:26 -0800

> From: ietf [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Alexander Nevalennyy
> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 7:45 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Topic IPv6
>
> 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, the 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

---

From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 15:42:52 -0500

On Mon, 21 Nov 2016, Tony Hain wrote:

> 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.
>

Is that now the rule?  Have RFCs 1984 & 2804 been superseded?

-- 
A. Michael Froomkin http://law.tm 305-284-4285 ssrn: bit.ly/1XlTJLz
Laurie Silvers & Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished Professor of Law
Editor, Jotwell: The Journal of Things We Like (Lots),  jotwell.com
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
                             It's warm here

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 13:16:48 -0800

> From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 12:43 PM
> To: Tony Hain
> Cc: 'Alexander Nevalennyy'; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Topic IPv6
> 
> > 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.
> >
> 
> 

I believe those prove the point that the IETF believes in the definition of
technologies, and the political implications of that are left for other
organizations. Yes they take a political stand in stating that the
technology should be available to anyone, but actual availability is
delivered through the implementation, which is not in the IETF's control. 

Tony

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 10:38:53 +1300

> Is that now the rule?  Have RFCs 1984 & 2804 been superseded?

Those RFCs were very carefully drafted to be based on technical issues
concerned with security. It's true that they have implications for
policy makers, and that they are inconvenient for policy makers who
prefer to deny technical reality.

   Brian

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 22:23:46 +0200

> prefer to deny technical reality.

+1 to what Brian says above.

Jari