Privacy issues in Identifier/Locator Separation Systems
draft-iannone-pidloc-privacy-01

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2020-03-09
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                         L. Iannone
Internet-Draft                                             Telecom Paris
Intended status: Standards Track                             D. von Hugo
Expires: September 10, 2020                             Deutsche Telekom
                                                             B. Sarikaya
                                                     Denpel Informatique
                                                             E. Nordmark
                                                                  Zededa
                                                           March 9, 2020

        Privacy issues in Identifier/Locator Separation Systems
                    draft-iannone-pidloc-privacy-01

Abstract

   There exists several protocols and proposals that leverage on the
   Identifier/Locator split paradigm, having some form of control plane
   by which participating nodes can share their current Identifier-to-
   Location information with their peers.  This document explores some
   of the privacy considerations for such a type of system.

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 https://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 September 10, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents

Iannone, et al.        Expires September 10, 2020               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft               Id-Loc privacy                   March 2020

   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   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.  Keywords and Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Identifier Locator Separation and Privacy . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Identifier Locator Split Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP) . . . . . .   5
     4.2.  Identifier/Locator Network Protocol (ILNP)  . . . . . . .   5
     4.3.  Information Centric Networking (ICN)  . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.4.  Host Identity Protocol (HIP)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.5.  Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN) . . . . . .   6
     4.6.  Some Relevant Privacy-Critical Scenarios  . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Threats against Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.1.  Location Privacy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.2.  Movement Privacy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Not everybody all the time  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.1.  Optimized Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.2.  Family and Friends  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.3.  Business Assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Boundary between ID/locator part and rest of Internet . . . .   9
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Introduction

   When the IP address is separated, one way or another, into an
   identifier and a locator, there is typically the need to be able to
   look up an identifier to find possible locators which can be used to
   reach the identified endpoint.  If such a system (think a distributed
   database) was publicly available, then this would introduce
   additional privacy considerations which do not exist in the absence
   of the ID/locator split.  Think for instance if identifiers are
   assigned to devices such as mobile phones which have a strong binding
   with an individual.  Having the location of such identifier publicly
   available implies make the individual whereabouts public.
Show full document text