On 2/16/16 12:26 AM, Christian Huitema wrote: > On Monday, February 15, 2016 6:53 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: >> >> It's true that this profile mitigates the amount of information that can be collected. >> But in IPv6 we have other configuration methods - such as SLAAC - that broadcast >> way less information than stateless DHCPv6, which in turn broadcasts less information >> than stateless DHCPv6. >> >> This document should recognize that at least on IPv6-only networks, it is an option >> not to use DHCP at all, and that option has substantial privacy benefits that are in >> many cases above what this profile can provide. > > Well, section 4 of draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-07 says: > > The choice between the stateful and stateless scenarios depends on > flag and prefix options published by the "Router Advertisement" > messages of local routers, as specified in [RFC4861]. When these > options enable stateless address configuration hosts using the > anonymity profile SHOULD choose it over stateful address > configuration, because stateless configuration requires fewer > information disclosures than stateful configuration. > > That seems pretty close from what you want, at least as far as "stateful DHCPv6" is concerned. I would agree that the above text covers what I interpret as Lorenzo's concern. Regards, Brian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature