draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-12.txt   draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-13.txt 
v6ops J. Brzozowski v6ops J. Brzozowski
Internet-Draft Comcast Cable Internet-Draft Comcast Cable
Intended status: Best Current Practice G. Van De Velde Intended status: Best Current Practice G. Van De Velde
Expires: April 2, 2018 Nokia Expires: April 19, 2018 Nokia
September 29, 2017 October 16, 2017
Unique IPv6 Prefix Per Host Unique IPv6 Prefix Per Host
draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-12 draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-13
Abstract Abstract
This document outlines an approach utilising existing IPv6 protocols This document outlines an approach utilising existing IPv6 protocols
to allow hosts to be assigned a unique IPv6 prefix (instead of a to allow hosts to be assigned a unique IPv6 prefix (instead of a
unique IPv6 address from a shared IPv6 prefix). Benefits of unique unique IPv6 address from a shared IPv6 prefix). Benefits of unique
IPv6 prefix over a unique service provider IPv6 address include IPv6 prefix over a unique service provider IPv6 address include
improved host isolation and enhanced subscriber management on shared improved host isolation and enhanced subscriber management on shared
network segments. network segments.
skipping to change at page 1, line 36 skipping to change at page 1, line 36
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 2, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 19, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 8, line 5 skipping to change at page 8, line 5
No IANA considerations are defined at this time. No IANA considerations are defined at this time.
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
The mechanics of IPv6 privacy extensions RFC4941 [RFC4941] is The mechanics of IPv6 privacy extensions RFC4941 [RFC4941] is
compatible with assignment of a unique IPv6 Prefix per Host. compatible with assignment of a unique IPv6 Prefix per Host.
However, when combining both IPv6 privacy extensions and a unique However, when combining both IPv6 privacy extensions and a unique
IPv6 Prefix per Host a reduced privacy experience for the subscriber IPv6 Prefix per Host a reduced privacy experience for the subscriber
is introduced, because a prefix may be associated with a subscriber, is introduced, because a prefix may be associated with a subscriber,
even when the subscriber implemented IPv6 privacy extensions RFC4941 even when the subscriber implemented IPv6 privacy extensions RFC4941
[RFC4941]. [RFC4941]. If the operator assigns the same unique prefix to the
same link-layer address every time a host connects, any remote party
who is aware of this fact can easily track a host simply by tracking
its assigned prefix. This nullifies the benefit provided by privacy
addresses RFC4941 [RFC4941]. If a host wishes to maintain privacy on
such networks, it SHOULD ensure that its link-layer address is
periodically changed or randomized.
No other additional security considerations are made in this No other additional security considerations are made in this
document. document.
8. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to explicit thank David Farmer and Lorenzo The authors would like to explicit thank David Farmer and Lorenzo
Colitti for their extended contributions and suggested text. Colitti for their extended contributions and suggested text.
In addition the authors would like to thank the following, in In addition the authors would like to thank the following, in
 End of changes. 4 change blocks. 
5 lines changed or deleted 11 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/