Internet DRAFT - draft-cooper-6man-ipv6-address-generation-privacy
draft-cooper-6man-ipv6-address-generation-privacy
Network Working Group A. Cooper
Internet-Draft CDT
Intended status: Informational F. Gont
Expires: January 16, 2014 Huawei Technologies
D. Thaler
Microsoft
July 15, 2013
Privacy Considerations for IPv6 Address Generation Mechanisms
draft-cooper-6man-ipv6-address-generation-privacy-00.txt
Abstract
This document discusses privacy and security considerations for
several IPv6 address generation mechanisms, both standardized and
non-standardized. It evaluates how different mechanisms mitigate
different threats and the trade-offs that implementors, developers,
and users face in choosing different addresses or address generation
mechanisms.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 16, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
Cooper, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Address Generation Privacy July 2013
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Weaknesses in IEEE-identifier-based IIDs . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Correlation of activities over time . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Location tracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Address scanning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Device-specific vulnerability exploitation . . . . . . . 6
4. Privacy and security properties of address generation
mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Single-address scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.1. Static, manually configured address only . . . . . . 8
4.1.2. Cryptographically generated address only . . . . . . 8
4.1.3. Temporary address only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.4. Persistent random address only . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.5. Random-per-network address only . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.6. DHCPv6 address only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Multiple-address scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.1. Temporary addresses and IEEE-identifier-based address 10
4.2.2. Temporary addresses and persistent random address . . 11
4.2.3. Temporary addresses and random-per-network addresses 11
5. Other Privacy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Miscellaneous Issues with IPv6 addressing . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. Network Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2. Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.3. Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
Cooper, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Address Generation Privacy July 2013
IPv6 was designed to improve upon IPv4 in many respects, and
mechanisms for address assignment were one such area for improvement.
In addition to static address assignment and DHCP, stateless
autoconfiguration was developed as a less intensive, fate-shared
means of performing address assignment. With stateless
autoconfiguration, routers advertise on-link prefixes and hosts
generate their own interface identifiers (IIDs) to complete their
addresses. Over the years, many interface identifier generation
techniques have been defined, both standardized and non-standardized:
o Manual configuration
* IPv4 address
* Service port
* Wordy
* Low-byte
o Stateless Address Auto-Cofiguration (SLAAC)
* IEEE 802 48-bit MAC or IEEE EUI-64 identifier
[RFC1972][RFC2464]
* Cryptographically generated [RFC3972]
* Persistent random [Microsoft]
* Temporary (also known as "privacy addresses") [RFC4941]
* Random-per-network (also known as "stable privacy addresses")
[I-D.ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses]
o DHCPv6-based [RFC3315]
o Specified by transition/co-existence technologies
* IPv4 address and port [RFC4380]
Deriving the IID from a globally unique IEEE identifier [RFC2462] was
one of the earliest mechanisms developed. A number of privacy and
security issues related to the interface IDs derived from IEEE
identifiers were discovered after their standardization, and many of
the mechanisms developed later aimed to mitigate some or all of these
weaknesses. This document identifies four types of threats against
IEEE-identifier-based IIDs, and discusses how other existing
techniques for generating IIDs do or do not mitigate those threats.
Cooper, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Address Generation Privacy July 2013
2. Terminology
This section clarifies the terminology used throughout this document.
Stable address:
An address that does not vary over time within the same network.
Note that [RFC4941] refers to these as "public" addresses, but
"stable" is used here for reasons explained in Section 4.2.
Temporary address:
An address that varies over time within the same network.
Public address:
An address that has been published on some sort of directory
service, such as the DNS [RFC1034].
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119]. These words take their normative meanings only when they
are presented in ALL UPPERCASE.
3. Weaknesses in IEEE-identifier-based IIDs
There are a number of privacy and security implications that exist
for hosts that use IEEE-identifier-based IIDs. This section
discusses four generic attack types: correlation of activities over
time, location tracking, device-specific vulnerability exploitation,
and address scanning. The first three of these rely on the attacker
first gaining knowledge of the target host's IID. This can be
achieved by a number of different attackers: the operator of a server
to which the host connects, such as a web server or a peer-to-peer
server; an entity that connects to the same network as the target
(such as a conference network or any public network); or an entity
that is on-path to the destinations with which the host communicates,
such as a network operator.
3.1. Correlation of activities over time
As with other identifiers, an IPv6 address can be used to correlate
the activities of a host for at least as long as the lifetime of the
address. The correlation made possible by IEEE-identifier-based IIDs
is of particular concern because MAC addresses are much more
permanent than, say, DHCP leases. MAC addresses tend to last roughly
the lifetime of a device's network interface, allowing correlation on
the order of years, compared to days for DHCP.
As [RFC4941] explains,
Cooper, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Address Generation Privacy July 2013
"[t]he use of a non-changing interface identifier to form
addresses is a specific instance of the more general case where a
constant identifier is reused over an extended period of time and
in multiple independent activities. Anytime the same identifier
is used in multiple contexts, it becomes possible for that
identifier to be used to correlate seemingly unrelated activity.
... The use of a constant identifier within an address is of
special concern because addresses are a fundamental requirement of
communication and cannot easily be hidden from eavesdroppers and
other parties. Even when higher layers encrypt their payloads,
addresses in packet headers appear in the clear."
IP addresses are just one example of information that can be used to
correlate activities over time. DNS names, cookies [RFC6265],
browser fingerprints [Panopticlick], and application-layer usernames
can all be used to link a host's activities together. Although IEEE-
identifier-based IIDs are likely to last at least as long or longer
than these other identifiers, IIDs generated in other ways may have
shorter or longer lifetimes than these identifiers depending on how
they are generated. Therefore, the extent to which a host's
activities can be correlated depends on whether the host uses
multiple identifiers together and the lifetimes of all of those
identifiers. Frequently refreshing an IPv6 address may not mitigate
correlation if an attacker has access to other longer lived
identifiers for a particular host. This is an important caveat to
keep in mind throughout the discussion of correlation in this
document. For further discussion of correlation, see Section 5.2.1
of [I-D.iab-privacy-considerations].
3.2. Location tracking
Because the IPv6 address structure is divided between a topological
portion and an interface identifier portion, an interface identifier
that remains constant when a host connects to different networks (as
an IEEE-identifier-based IID does) provides a way for observers to
track the movements of that host. In a passive attack on a mobile
host, a server that receives connections from the same host over time
would be able to determine the host's movements as its prefix
changes.
Cooper, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Address Generation Privacy July 2013
Active attacks are also possible. An attacker that first learns the
host's interface identifier by being connected to the same network
segment, running a server that the host connects to, or being on-path
to the host's communications could subsequently probe other networks
for the presence of the same interface identifier by sending a probe
packet (ICMPv6 Echo Request, or any other probe packet). Even if the
host does not respond, the first hop router will usually respond with
an ICMP Address Unreachable when the host is not present, and be
silent when the host is present.
3.3. Address scanning
The structure of IEEE-based identifiers used for address generation
can be leveraged by an attacker to reduce the target search space
[I-D.ietf-opsec-ipv6-host-scanning]. The 24-bit Organizationally
Unique Identifier (OUI) of MAC addresses, together with the fixed
value (0xff, 0xfe) used to form a Modified EUI-64 Interface
Identifier, greatly help to reduce the search space, making it easier
for an attacker to scan for individual addresses using widely-known
popular OUIs.
3.4. Device-specific vulnerability exploitation
IPv6 addresses that embed IEEE identifiers leak information about the
device (Network Interface Card vendor, or even Operating System and/
or software type), which could be leveraged by an attacker with
knowledge of device/software-specific vulnerabilities to quickly find
possible targets. Attackers can exploit vulnerabilities in hosts
whose IIDs they have previously obtained, or scan an address space to
find potential targets.
4. Privacy and security properties of address generation mechanisms
Analysis of the extent to which a particular host is protected
against the threats described in Section 3 depends on how each of a
host's IIDs is generated and used. In some scenarios, a host
configures a single global address and uses it for all
communications. In other scenarios, a host configures multiple
addresses using different mechanisms and may use any or all of them.
This section compares the privacy and security properties of a
variety of IID generation/use scenarios. The scenarios are grouped
according to whether one or more addresses are configured. The table
below provides a summary of the analysis.
+--------------+-------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Mechanism(s) | Correlation | Location | Address | Device |
| | | tracking | scanning | exploits |
+--------------+-------------+------------+------------+------------+
Cooper, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Address Generation Privacy July 2013
| Static | For address | For | NP | Depends on |
| manual only | lifetime | address | | generation |
| | | lifetime | | mechanism |
| | | | | |
| CGA only | Within | NP | NP | NP |
| | single | | | |
| | network | | | |
| | | | | |
| Temporary | NP | NP | NP | NP |
| only | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Persistent | For address | For | NP | NP |
| random only | lifetime | address | | |
| | | lifetime | | |
| | | | | |
| Random-per- | Within | NP | NP | NP |
| network only | single | | | |
| | network | | | |
| | | | | |
| Temporary | When IEEE- | Possible | Possible | Possible |
| and IEEE- | based is in | | | |
| based | use, or for | | | |
| | temp | | | |
| | address | | | |
| | lifetime | | | |
| | | | | |
| Temporary | When random | Possible | Possible | Possible |
| and | is in use, | | | |
| persistent | or for temp | | | |
| random | address | | | |
| | lifetime | | | |
| | | | | |
| Temporary | Within | NP | NP | NP |
| and random- | single | | | |
| per-network | network, or | | | |
| | for temp | | | |
| | address | | | |
| | lifetime | | | |
+--------------+-------------+------------+------------+------------+
Legend: NP = Not possible
Table 1: Privacy and security properties of IPv6 address generation
mechanisms
4.1. Single-address scenarios
Cooper, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Address Generation Privacy July 2013
4.1.1. Static, manually configured address only
Because static, manually configured addresesses are persistent, both
correlation and location tracking are possible for the life of the
address.
The extent to which location tracking can be successfully performed
depends, to a some extent, on the uniqueness of the employed
Intarface ID. For example, one would expect "low byte" Interface IDs
to be more widely reused than, for example, Interface IDs where the
whole 64-bits follow some pattern that is unique to a specific
organization. Widely reused Interface IDs will typically lead to
false positives when performing location tracking.
Because they do not embed OUIs, manually configured addresses are not
vulnerable to device-specific exploitation. Whether they are
vulnerable to address scanning depends on the specifics of how they
are generated.
4.1.2. Cryptographically generated address only
Cryptographically generated addresses (CGAs) [RFC3972] bind a hash of
the host's public key to an IPv6 address in the SEcure Neighbor
Discovery (SEND) [RFC3971] protocol. CGAs are uniquely generated for
each subnet prefix, which means that correlation is possible within a
single network only. A host that stays connected to the same network
could therefore be tracked at length, whereas a mobile host's
activities could only be correlated for the duration of each network
connection. Location tracking is not possible with CGAs. CGAs also
do not allow device-specific exploitation or address scanning
attacks.
4.1.3. Temporary address only
A host that uses only a temporary address mitigates all four threats.
Its activities may only be correlated for the lifetime a single
address.
4.1.4. Persistent random address only
Although a mechanism to generate a static, random IID has not been
standardized, it has been in wide use for many years on at least one
platform (Windows). Windows uses the [RFC4941] random generation
mechanism in lieu of generating an IEEE-identifier-based IID. This
mitigates the device-specific exploitation and address scanning
attacks, but still allows correlation and location tracking because
the address is persistent across networks and time.
Cooper, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Address Generation Privacy July 2013
4.1.5. Random-per-network address only
[I-D.ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses] specifies a mechanism that
generates a unique random IID for each network. A host that stays
connected to the same network could therefore be tracked at length,
whereas a mobile host's activities could only be correlated for the
duration of each network connection. Location tracking is not
possible with these addresses. They also do not allow device-
specific exploitation or address scanning attacks.
4.1.6. DHCPv6 address only
TBD
4.2. Multiple-address scenarios
[RFC3041] (later obsoleted by [RFC4941]) sought to address some of
the problems described in Section 3 by defining "temporary addresses"
(commonly referred to as "privacy addresses") for outbound
connections. Temporary addresses are meant to supplement the other
IIDs that a device might use, not to replace them. They are randomly
generated and change daily by default. The idea was for temporary
addresses to be used for outgoing connections (e.g. web browsing)
while maintaining the ability to use a stable address when more
address stability is desired (e.g., in DNS advertisements).
[RFC3484] originally specified that stable addresses be used for
outbound connections unless an application explicitly prefers
temporary addresses. The default preference for stable addresses was
established to avoid applications potentially failing due to the
short lifetime of temporary addresses or the possibility of a reverse
look-up failure or error. However, [RFC3484] allowed that
"implementations for which privacy considerations outweigh these
application compatibility concerns MAY reverse the sense of this
rule" and instead prefer by default temporary addresses rather than
stable addresses. Indeed most implementations (notably including
Windows) chose to default to temporary addresses for outbound
connections since privacy was considered more important (and few
applications supported IPv6 at the time, so application compatibility
concerns were minimal). [RFC6724] then obsoleted [RFC3484] and
changed the default to match what implementations actually did.
The envisioned relationship in [RFC3484] between stability of an
address and its use in "public" can be misleading when conducting
privacy analysis. The stability of an address and the extent to
which it is linkable to some other public identifier are independent
of one another. For example, there is nothing that prevents a host
from publishing a temporary address in a public place, such as the
Cooper, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Address Generation Privacy July 2013
DNS. Publishing both a stable address and a temporary address in the
DNS or elsewhere where they can be linked together by a public
identifier allows the host's activities when using either address to
be correlated together.
Moreover, because temporary addresses were designed to supplement
other addresses generated by a host, the host may still configure a
more stable address even if it only ever intentionally uses temporary
addresses (as source addresses) for communication to off-link
destinations. An attacker can probe for the stable address even if
it is never used as such a source address or advertised (e.g., in DNS
or SIP) outside the link.
The scenarios in this section describe the privacy and security
properties in cases where a host configures both a temporary address
and an address generated via another mechanism. The analysis
distinguishes between cases when both addresses are used as source
addresses or are advertised off-link and cases where only the
temporary address is used in those manners.
[TO DO: Add in Temporary + manual, Temporary + DHCP, Temporary +
other link-layer-derived, Temporary + CGA, and perhaps re-arrange
this section to avoid repetition.]
4.2.1. Temporary addresses and IEEE-identifier-based address
By using an IEEE-identifier-based IID and temporary addresses, a host
can be vulnerable to the same attacks as if temporary addresses were
not in use, although the viability of some of them depends on how the
host uses each address. An attacker can correlate all of the host's
activities for which it uses its IEEE-identifier-based IID. Once an
attacker has obtained the IEEE-identifier-based IID, location
tracking becomes possible on other networks even if the host only
makes use of temporary addresses on those other networks; the
attacker can actively probe the other networks for the presence of
the IEEE-identifier-based IID. Device-specific vulnerabilities can
still be exploited. Address scanning is also still possible because
the IEEE-identifier-based address can be probed.
A host that configures but does not use an IEEE-identifier-based IID
is vulnerable to address scanning because the address can be probed
even if the IEEE-identifier-based address is otherwise never used.
Once an attacker has received such a response, it can exploit device-
specific vulnerabilities or probe other networks over time to track
the location of the host. Correlation over time, however, is
significantly mitigated, since the temporary addresses that the host
routinely uses on the network refresh often.
Cooper, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Address Generation Privacy July 2013
4.2.2. Temporary addresses and persistent random address
Using a persistent, random address as a stable address for server-
like connections together with temporary addresses for outbound
connections presents some improvements over the previous scenario.
The address scanning and device-specific exploitation attacks are no
longer possible because the OUI is no longer embedded in any of the
host's addresses. However, correlation of some activities across
time and location tracking are both still possible because the random
IID is persistent. As in Section 4.2.1, once an attacker has
obtained the host's random IID, location tracking is possible on any
network by probing for that IID, even if the host only uses temporary
addresses on those networks.
A host that configures but does not use a persistent random address
mitigates all four threats. Correlation is only possible for the
lifetime of a temporary address. The persistent random address
cannot be easily discovered in an address scan (although it is
available to an on-link adversary), which prevents an attacker from
using it for location tracking or device-specific exploitation.
4.2.3. Temporary addresses and random-per-network addresses
When used together with temporary addresses, the random-per-network
mechanism [I-D.ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses] improves upon the
previous scenario by limiting the potential for correlation to the
lifetime of the random-per-network address (which may still be
lengthy for hosts that are not mobile) and eliminating the
possibility for location tracking (since a different IID is generated
for each subnet prefix).
As in the previous scenario, a host that configures but does not use
a random-per-network address mitigates all four threats.
5. Other Privacy Issues
Since IPv6 subnets have unique prefixes, they reveal some information
about the location of the subnet, just as IPv4 addresses do. Hiding
this information is one motivation for usng NAT in IPv6 (see RFC 5902
section 2.4).
Cooper, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Address Generation Privacy July 2013
Teredo [RFC4380] specifies a means to generate an IPv6 address from
the underlying IPv4 address and port, leaving many other bits set to
zero. This makes it relatively easy for an attacker to scan for IPv6
addresses by guessing the Teredo client's IPv4 address and port
(which for many NATs is not randomized). For this reason, popular
implementations (e.g., Windows), began deviating from the standard by
including 12 random bits in place of zero bits. This modification
was later standardized in [RFC5991].
6. Miscellaneous Issues with IPv6 addressing
6.1. Network Operation
It is generally agreed that IPv6 addresses that vary over time in a
specific network tend to increase the complexity of event logging,
trouble-shooting, enforcement of access controls and quality of
service, etc. As a result, some organizations disable the use of
temporary addresses [RFC4941] even at the expense of reduced privacy
[Broersma].
6.2. Compliance
Major IPv6 compliance testing suites required (and still require)
implementations to support MAC-derived suffixes in order to be
approved as compliant. Implementations that fail to support MAC-
derived suffixes are therefore largely not eligible to receive the
benefits of compliance certification (e.g., use of the IPv6 logo,
eligibility for government contracts, etc.). This document
recommends that these be relaxed to allow other forms of address
generation that are more amenable to privacy.
6.3. Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs)
Some IPv6 addressing techniques might be covered by Intellectual
Property rights, which might limit their implementation in different
Operating Systems. [CGA-IPR] and [KAME-CGA] discuss the IPRs on
CGAs.
7. Security Considerations
This whole document concerns the privacy and security properties of
different IPv6 address generation mechanisms.
Cooper, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Address Generation Privacy July 2013
8. IANA Considerations
This document does not require actions by IANA.
9. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Bernard Aboba and Rich Draves.
10. Informative References
[Broersma]
Broersma, R., "IPv6 Everywhere: Living with a Fully
IPv6-enabled environment", Australian IPv6 Summit 2010,
Melbourne, VIC Australia, October 2010, October 2010,
<http://www.ipv6.org.au/10ipv6summit/talks/
Ron_Broersma.pdf>.
[CGA-IPR] IETF, "Intellectual Property Rights on RFC 3972", 2005.
[I-D.iab-privacy-considerations]
Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
Considerations for Internet Protocols", draft-iab-privacy-
considerations-03 (work in progress), July 2012.
[I-D.ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses]
Gont, F., "A method for Generating Stable Privacy-Enhanced
Addresses with IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
(SLAAC)", draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-10
(work in progress), June 2013.
[I-D.ietf-opsec-ipv6-host-scanning]
Gont, F. and T. Chown, "Network Reconnaissance in IPv6
Networks", draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-host-scanning-01 (work in
progress), April 2013.
[KAME-CGA]
KAME, "The KAME IPR policy and concerns of some
technologies which have IPR claims", 2005.
[Microsoft]
Microsoft, "IPv6 interface identifiers", 2013.
[Panopticlick]
Electronic Frontier Foundation, "Panopticlick", 2011.
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
Cooper, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Address Generation Privacy July 2013
[RFC1972] Crawford, M., "A Method for the Transmission of IPv6
Packets over Ethernet Networks", RFC 1972, August 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2462] Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998.
[RFC2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet
Networks", RFC 2464, December 1998.
[RFC3041] Narten, T. and R. Draves, "Privacy Extensions for
Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC 3041,
January 2001.
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
[RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet
Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.
[RFC3971] Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander, "SEcure
Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, March 2005.
[RFC3972] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)",
RFC 3972, March 2005.
[RFC4380] Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through
Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380, February
2006.
[RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007.
[RFC5991] Thaler, D., Krishnan, S., and J. Hoagland, "Teredo
Security Updates", RFC 5991, September 2010.
[RFC6265] Barth, A., "HTTP State Management Mechanism", RFC 6265,
April 2011.
[RFC6724] Thaler, D., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
"Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6)", RFC 6724, September 2012.
Cooper, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Address Generation Privacy July 2013
Authors' Addresses
Alissa Cooper
CDT
1634 Eye St. NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
US
Phone: +1-202-637-9800
Email: acooper@cdt.org
URI: http://www.cdt.org/
Fernando Gont
Huawei Technologies
Evaristo Carriego 2644
Haedo, Provincia de Buenos Aires 1706
Argentina
Phone: +54 11 4650 8472
Email: fgont@si6networks.com
URI: http://www.si6networks.com
Dave Thaler
Microsoft
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
Phone: +1 425 703 8835
Email: dthaler@microsoft.com
Cooper, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 15]
