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

> On 15 May 2017, at 11:44, Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan at go6.si> wrote:
> 
> On 15/05/2017 12:21, Tim Chown wrote:
>> But we should not do anything to preclude privacy-enhancing methods being applied at any layer.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> But how does changing the address prefix provide any possible privacy
> enhancement at all? It's usually L7 that provides/breaks nearly all of
> that…

Sure, much is at the application layer, but that is not a reason to address privacy issues at each layer.  Hence, for example, with my IETF hat on, draft-ietf-dnssd-privacy-01 and draft-ietf-dnssd-pairing-01.

> Nevertheless, for those people being completely lost with how technology
> works and to assure their warm&fuzzy feeling while dictating how others
> should build and run their networks - I would agree to add your proposed
> text below to the document. ;)

:)

Well, I guess there is a potential user education topic here as well.  It’s a trade-off.

Tim

> Cheers and thnx, Jan
> 
>> 
>> 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
>>