Subject: [v6ops] Draft-Chown-v6-address-accountability

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 18:29:04 -0400

I'm sure there will be lots of discussion about Tim's draft. I just
want to say one thing: be sure you understand endpoint privacy
requirements and take them into account. The end user is who you are
in business for. Let's use solutions that make them happy to be
customers instead of treating them as pesky nuisances.

... Scott

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 23:46:01 +0100

> customers instead of treating them as pesky nuisances.

Hi Scott,

It's a topic that comes up whenever I speak to other university sites deploying IPv6, or considering doing so, hence the draft, to see what views and ideas are out there.  Two common questions that come up are whether the existing DHCPv4 accountability model can be applied, and where it is not (or can not be) how can accountability be best achieved where clients have multiple autoconfigured or privacy addresses that may also be changing rapidly over time.

What type of user privacy requirements do you have in mind?  This topic isn't included yet as the text is a drafty draft, but I would guess the general view will be that privacy of addresses within an enterprise is a somewhat unrealistic expectation because the network administrator will always have access to the switch or router port-MAC tables or ND tables.  However, for user traffic going outside the enterprise, IPv6 privacy addresses have a benefit for the user against tracking by 3rd parties.  Obviously comments are welcome on that.

For those interested, the draft is here:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-chown-v6ops-address-accountability-00.txt

Tim

---

From: Tomas Podermanski <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 19:58:21 +0200

Hi Tim,
    there is an document that is very close to the topic you are trying
to touch. Some "IPv6 accounting experience" got at a campus network is
described there. You may find there some useful ideas for work on your
draft.

Link is:
http://www.terena.org/activities/campus-bp/pdf/gn3-na3-t4-cbpd132.pdf
(the second part of the document)

Tomas

On 7/5/11 12:46 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
> It's a topic that comes up whenever I speak to other university sites
> deploying IPv6, or considering doing so, hence the draft, to see what
> views and ideas are out there.  Two common questions that come up are
> whether the existing DHCPv4 accountability model can be applied, and
> where it is not (or can not be) how can accountability be best
> achieved where clients have multiple autoconfigured or privacy
> addresses that may also be changing rapidly over time.
>
> What type of user privacy requirements do you have in mind?  This
> topic isn't included yet as the text is a drafty draft, but I would
> guess the general view will be that privacy of addresses within an
> enterprise is a somewhat unrealistic expectation because the network
> administrator will always have access to the switch or router port-MAC
> tables or ND tables.  However, for user traffic going outside the
> enterprise, IPv6 privacy addresses have a benefit for the user against
> tracking by 3rd parties.  Obviously comments are welcome on that.
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops