[ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document - draft v.2 for review.

Hi,

> On 13 May 2017, at 18:41, Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan at go6.si> wrote:
> 
> On 13/05/2017 10:16, Jens Link wrote:
>> Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan at go6.si> writes:
>>> Draft version 2 is now available for reading at
>>> https://sinog.si/docs/draft-IPv6pd-BCOP-v2.pdf
>> 
>> I like but I don't see it happening.
>> 
>> 1. Stable Addresses - Data protection people will have a hart attack
>>   when they read this. As will many customers. Don't get me wrong I
>>   *do* want a stable prefix at home but many people don't. Changing
>>   addresses gives them some pseudo anonymity and the warm feeling that
>>   they are not traceable and secure. 
> 
> Data protection people will have to learn how technology works and stop
> breaking IPv6 deployments with enforcing bad practices from IPv4 world.
> WE dynamically changed IPv4 address because we started running out of
> them, not to ensure anonimity. That warm fuzzy feeling is made-up
> collateral damage that was never even a intent ;)
> 
> As Jordi mentioned, traceability starts on L7 and it doesn't matter how
> much you change addresses, you'll be trackable.
> 
> For reference, try it on https://panopticlick.eff.org/
> 
> Click, change address, click again.

But we should not do anything to preclude privacy-enhancing methods being applied at any layer.

I would argue that the BCOP text should say:

a) ISPs are encouraged to support both stable (persistent) and privacy-oriented (non-persistent) prefixes as options for customers;

b) stable/persistent prefixes are recommended as the default, in the absence of legal requirements to the contrary in any specific country.

I’d also note that the biggest UK IPv6 deployment is a “sticky” /56 to residences; it’s hard for an ISP to guarantee a lifetime stable prefix, but they can take steps to minimise the likelihood of a change being needed.

Tim