[Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
56 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

Huib Laurens
Hi,

if people wants privacy they should use a account, this is nothing
different from IPV4.
When the mission is to make sure that everybody can have free knowledge we
should not delay IPV6
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:27 PM, John Du Hart <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > What personal information do you think is contained in an IPv6 address?
>
> Don't they sometimes contain MAC address information?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



--
Kind regards,

Huib Laurens
WickedWay.nl

Webhosting the wicked way.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> * IPv6 adoption is still below 1% globally [1].
> * It's likely that we'll encounter network-level issues well before we
> hit application-level issues during limited production testing.
> * In the event that we manage to resolve all issues, it's likely that
> we'll only see very limited use/abuse of IPv6 addresses and that we'll
> have plenty of time to adjust procedures and documentation.

I find it interesting that privacy is the main objection that has come
up, because the problem with IPv6 from the POV of WMF is the ready
availability of anonymizing proxies.

My own prediction is that, within a short period of time, 99.9999% of
edits done through IPv6 will be abuse.  I'd say immediately, but 5
days may be a bit too short for hoards of people to figure out how to
chain an IPv6 proxy and TOR.

> * We can abort this fairly easily, or as Tim suggests, employ global
> blocks of IPv6 addresses to manage abuse.

Make sure to practice doing this.  It's only a matter of time.

Maybe putting a limit on the number of IPv6 edits that can be made per
minute would be a good idea too.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

Anthony-73
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
> My own prediction is that, within a short period of time, 99.9999% of
> edits done through IPv6 will be abuse.  I'd say immediately, but 5
> days may be a bit too short for hoards of people to figure out how to
> chain an IPv6 proxy and TOR.

Lest someone suggest that the solution to this is to block the IPv6
proxy.  The problem is that most of the legitimate traffic using IPv6
also will be using a proxy/tunnel.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 2 June 2012 13:44, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:27 PM, John Du Hart <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> What personal information do you think is contained in an IPv6 address?
>>
>> Don't they sometimes contain MAC address information?
>
> I don't know, but I wouldn't consider my MAC address to be personal
> information... you might be able to work out what brand of computer
> I'm using, but I can live with that.

I'm not sure what you're defining personal information as, then.

Is your vehicle's VIN personal information?

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

Leslie Carr
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 2 June 2012 13:44, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:27 PM, John Du Hart <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> What personal information do you think is contained in an IPv6 address?
>>>
>>> Don't they sometimes contain MAC address information?
>>
>> I don't know, but I wouldn't consider my MAC address to be personal
>> information... you might be able to work out what brand of computer
>> I'm using, but I can live with that.

I think that having a problem with the implementation of IPv6 is about
10 years too late now ;) The IPv4 space is being exhausted, and we're
going to soon run into the opposite problem that IPv4 addresses will
be not identifiable enough as ISP's use NAT.

If someone cares about their mac address information, they can use
privacy extensions - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipv6#Privacy .
Considering that in the vast, vast majority of the consumer (versus
production) world, you have to purposefully enable IPv6 (usually with
some sort of tunneling), and that these are turned on in most
operating systems by default, mac addressing is starting to only
become applicable in production environments.

Leslie

--
Leslie Carr
Wikimedia Foundation
AS 14907, 43821
http://as14907.peeringdb.com/

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

Anthony-73
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Leslie Carr <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> On 2 June 2012 13:44, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:27 PM, John Du Hart <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> What personal information do you think is contained in an IPv6 address?
>>>>
>>>> Don't they sometimes contain MAC address information?
>>>
>>> I don't know, but I wouldn't consider my MAC address to be personal
>>> information... you might be able to work out what brand of computer
>>> I'm using, but I can live with that.
>
> I think that having a problem with the implementation of IPv6 is about
> 10 years too late now ;)

The problem isn't with IPv6.  The problem is with the way WMF uses IP addresses.

Of course, it's about 10 years too late for that too.  :)

> If someone cares about their mac address information, they can use
> privacy extensions - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipv6#Privacy .

I agree.  Though it would probably be a good idea to warn people about
the problem, before publishing their address for the world to see.  A
sentence or two added to the IP address warning which already appears
would probably put things on par with IPv4 addresses.

Personally II think WMF is far too loose about IP addresses in the
first place.  But as I said above, it's about 10 years too late for
that.

---

http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-122/sp800-122.pdf

Page 2-2

"The following list contains examples of information that may be
considered PII."

"Asset information, such as Internet Protocol (IP) or Media Access
Control (MAC) address or other host-specific persistent static
identifier that consistently links to a particular person or small,
well-defined group of people"

"Information identifying personally owned property, such as vehicle
registration number or title
number and related information"

Granted, it only says "may be considered" PII.  Certainly seems
definitive to me, though.

And note, of course, that IPv4 addresses also may be considered PII.
IPv6 addresses are just sometimes more likely to be
persistent/static/consistent, and often link to a smaller, more
well-defined group of people.  But then, see above, as IPv6 addresses
sometimes are more anonymous than IPv4 addresses.  It all depends on
the implementation.

Anyway, I do think MAC addresses are certainly (in the vast majority
of cases), PII.  That IPv6 addresses are often PII.  And that IPv4
addresses are often PII.  I don't think IPv6 addresses are
particularly more likely to be PII than IPv4 addresses.  So,
basically, I think the privacy concern specifically about IPv6 is
mostly misplaced.  But it would be nice to readdress the privacy
concerns over IP addresses in general.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

Birgitte_sb
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4




On Jun 2, 2012, at 5:06 AM, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>
> Moving towards full IPv6 support is part of our responsibility as a
> good Internet citizen, and this has been in the works for a long time.
> It's never been an option not to do this as IPv4 addresses are being
> exhausted.
>
>

This is the relavent point.  For what it is worth I, who am less inclined to follow technical discussions than other kinds, remember that there was enough talk about approaching IPv6 day last year to feel it was settled that WMF was unprepared to participate at that time would make it happen in 2012.  It was either here or on wikitech-l.

I am not sure how someone who has strong opinions on the subject would be left unable to follow this when I followed with no such interest.  Moe importantly, I don't understand what exactly the objectors see as a better option.  No one will fix the scripts until they are broken, it is just the nature of the beast.  It seems the whole point of IPv6 day is that no one is very confident about level of breakage of things with IPv6 and no one will be able to gain this confidence until a significant number of sites turn it on and there is not another choice on the matter. Objecting to turning on IPv6 because things will break does not seem to be very informed. This is the point. If anyone doesn't trust that WMF will only make a day of it if the breakage is unmanageable, then they've bigger issues than IPv6.  And even still, the sun will rise and we will have a few less IPv4 addresses everyday; there are much better battles to pick.

Birgitte SB
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

Kat Walsh-4
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> June 6, 2012 is IPv6 Day ( http://www.worldipv6day.org/ ). The goal of
> this global event is to move more ISPs, equipment manufacturers and
> web services to permanent adoption of IPv6.
>
> We're planning to do limited production testing of IPv6 during the
> Berlin Hackathon 2012 (June 2-3). Provided that the number of issues
> we encounter are manageable, we may fully enable IPv6 on IPv6 day, and
> keep it enabled.

Thanks Erik and all who are working on this! It's important work and
I'm glad to see us joining the community of sites and organizations
who are prepared for this necessity.

(Acknowledging the potential issues others have mentioned, I'm also
glad to see it while there are still few users who will be using IPv6,
so the problems that arise will be much smaller than they would be in
the future.)

Cheers,
Kat

--
Your donations keep Wikipedia free: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Web: http://www.mindspillage.org Email: [hidden email], [hidden email]
(G)AIM, Freenode, gchat, identi.ca, twitter, various social sites: mindspillage

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

George William Herbert
In reply to this post by Anthony-73




On Jun 2, 2012, at 6:13, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 2 June 2012 13:44, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:27 PM, John Du Hart <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> What personal information do you think is contained in an IPv6 address?
>>>
>>> Don't they sometimes contain MAC address information?
>>
>> I don't know, but I wouldn't consider my MAC address to be personal
>> information... you might be able to work out what brand of computer
>> I'm using, but I can live with that.
>
> I'm not sure what you're defining personal information as, then.
>
> Is your vehicle's VIN personal information?

It becomes a global unique publicly visible identifier if you always use the same connect method (wireless, ethernet) and don't enable privacy extensions.

In WMF relevant senses, unaware abusers with multiple ISPs become easier to find.  And privacy is different, because many end users are IDed that way.  But the implications of that are unclear.  Someone being outed to an employer or government by MAC?  ...


George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

George William Herbert
In reply to this post by Tim Starling-2




On Jun 2, 2012, at 1:05, Tim Starling <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 02/06/12 05:04, Hersfold wrote:
>> I'm very concerned that this is what's going to happen with the IPv6
>> change - something major is going to fail, and the wiki will become
>> inaccessible, or some major security feature (blocking or protection,
>> for example) will be rendered inoperable, leaving the wikis vulnerable
>> to attack from all fronts. The latter situation seems to be more
>> likely based on past issues, and unfortunately more problematic; once
>> these issues get noted, it'll take only minutes for /b/, GNAA, and a
>> long list of other vandals to figure it out and launch a full-scale
>> attack that'll take weeks to clean up.
>
> We could just allow blocking of arbitrarily large IPv6 ranges. Then if
> there is some emergency, you can just block everyone who is using IPv6
> from editing. The collateral damage would be smaller than the IPv4 /16
> blocks which admins apply routinely.
>
> -- Tim Starling

Routinely is a little strong.  Admins should be taking due care regarding collateral damage for /16s...

But, it is done.


George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

Erik Moeller-4
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
Hi folks,

Mark Bergsma just shared the following recap with me, for those who
are interested in the details of what happened at the hackathon and
next steps. tl;dr: If all goes well we'll be ready to launch full
production deployment on Wednesday, starting around 10AM UTC
(MediaWiki engineers will be working closely with the ops team
Wednesday to monitor bugs/issues).

Keep an eye on the server admin log and the puppet repo if you want to
know what's going on in full detail:

http://wikitech.wikimedia.org/view/Server_admin_log
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/q/status:merged+project:operations/puppet,n,z

Erik

- - -

The last few days we've worked on getting the software ready (mainly
PyBal/LVS) as well as Puppet support for provisioning of IPv6
addresses to servers and configuration changes for IPv6 connectivity.
That's now 90% done. What remains is mostly to actually roll this out
for all services in all data centers, which we will be doing tomorrow.
Besides that, we have a few "would be nice to haves" left to do, such
as having our own 6to4 and miredo relays.

I just got the first LVS service running with IPv6, and am now
browsing upload.wikimedia.org over IPv6 (local /etc/hosts entry of
course, not in DNS yet). ipv6 support for LVS in Ubuntu Precise was
the last major uncertain factor on the infrastructure side; besides a
few quick tests in labs we had not really tested this yet in our
production setup. Fortunately, it appears to be working fine. Tomorrow
the remaining (inactive) LVS balancers will be reinstalled with
Precise and made IPv6-ready to support all other services, while the
currently active IPv4 balancers will keep their current setup for some
time to come - so we won't hit any surprises on IPv4 at least.

But, we haven't done any production tests with MediaWiki yet. We can
do some dark testing and actual edits tomorrow. Assuming we see no
surprises there, we can enable it for the all wikis and the general
public on Wednesday.

To conclude, we're on track on the infrastructure side. It is tight,
though. Assuming the MediaWiki side has no unwelcome surprises for us,
I expect to be able to make it.

--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Update on IPv6

Erik Moeller-4
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Freek Dijkstra <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I want to express my gratitude for all engineers who made this happen.
> Kudos and compliments to all of you.

Credit goes to Mark Bergsma, Faidon Liambotis, Ryan Lane, Asher
Feldman, Aaron Schulz, Chris Steipp, and many others for helping make
this happen. Many members of the team worked practically nonstop to
ensure that we can launch on IPv6 Day. Here's a full update from Mark:

[begin quote]
Today, between 10:00 and 11:00 UTC, we've gradually enabled IPv6 for
all wikis. We started with upload, followed by bits, then the main
wikis, and concluded with the mobile cluster.

So far it seems to be working fine. We're seeing some edits being made
over IPv6, and IPv6 traffic is in the low tens of Mbps range. Browsing
the sites over IPv6 seems to just work like it does with v4. I haven't
heard of a single complaint yet. It was very uneventful. :-)

Nonetheless, there will be a very small (fractional) percentage of
clients who no longer can access our sites. Part of the idea of today
- IPv6 Launch Day - is to collectively force these clients and
relevant network issues to get fixed. Faidon has also improved my old
"selective-answer.py" DNS backend, previously used for IPv6 DNS
whitelisting, to allow it to be used as a blacklist. If we find
networks that are unable or unwilling to resolve any IPv6 issues, then
we can selectively disable IPv6 for their IP address prefixes. This is
not in use yet, but can be deployed quickly.
[end quote]

There will surely be new MediaWiki or tool/bot level issues as well,
but hopefully they'll be manageable without a rollback. The best way
to report most issues is through https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ and
by adding the "ipv6" keyword.


--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Update on IPv6

David Richfield
I'm glad to see that Navigation Popups works nicely with IPv6.

--
David Richfield
[[:en:User:Slashme]]
+27718539985

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

Kim Bruning
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:12:58PM +0200, Erik Moeller wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We're planning to do limited production testing of IPv6 during the
> Berlin Hackathon 2012 (June 2-3). Provided that the number of issues
> we encounter are manageable, we may fully enable IPv6 on IPv6 day, and
> keep it enabled.


What with XS4ALL (my ISP) now also offering IPv6 out-of-the-box, there's
at least one extra IPv6 anon on en.wp. ;-)


I noticed that my current IPv6 address appears to be assigned
dynamically by XS4ALL. I can probably get static if I choose it. But the
dynamic assignment option does alleviate some people's privacy
concerns, right?

sincerely,
        Kim Bruning


ps. We all know that everyone needs to switch to IPv6 eventually.
Don't be surprised when people in your neighborhood decide to do
so, with or without additional warning.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

Strainu
2012/6/13 Kim Bruning <[hidden email]>:
> I noticed that my current IPv6 address appears to be assigned
> dynamically by XS4ALL. I can probably get static if I choose it. But the
> dynamic assignment option does alleviate some people's privacy
> concerns, right?

It depends on their OS. On Windows, OSX, iOS and Ubuntu (so over 95%
of all traffic considering an equal distribution of IPv6 addresses), I
would say yes, since they have enabled the privacy extension by
default. For the rest of the world, not really. Even if the first half
of the address is dynamic, the last part will be static and linked to
your Ethernet adapter.

Strainu

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Kim Bruning
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Kim Bruning <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I noticed that my current IPv6 address appears to be assigned
> dynamically by XS4ALL. I can probably get static if I choose it. But the
> dynamic assignment option does alleviate some people's privacy
> concerns, right?

One particular concern, which isn't really much different from IPv4.

And in something like 90% of browser configurations, you're already
giving out a semi-static unique string with every request anyway.
(see https://panopticlick.eff.org/)

The bigger concern for WMF is the possibility for increased privacy.

> ps. We all know that everyone needs to switch to IPv6 eventually.

Unless IPv7 or IPv8 comes out first.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

Deryck Chan-2
On a separate note about IPv6: I just saw the first IPv6 anon entry
appearing on my watchlist. It's exciting!
Deryck

On 13 June 2012 13:43, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Kim Bruning <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > I noticed that my current IPv6 address appears to be assigned
> > dynamically by XS4ALL. I can probably get static if I choose it. But the
> > dynamic assignment option does alleviate some people's privacy
> > concerns, right?
>
> One particular concern, which isn't really much different from IPv4.
>
> And in something like 90% of browser configurations, you're already
> giving out a semi-static unique string with every request anyway.
> (see https://panopticlick.eff.org/)
>
> The bigger concern for WMF is the possibility for increased privacy.
>
> > ps. We all know that everyone needs to switch to IPv6 eventually.
>
> Unless IPv7 or IPv8 comes out first.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
FT2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

FT2
IPv6 is designed to operate on a "one IP = one device/connection" (non-NAT)
basis, far more than IPv4.  Privacy policy coversd "personally identifiable
information".  An IP becomes personally identifying when it broadly allows
a person to be identified.  If IPv4 can be "personally identifying" then
IPv6 is guaranteed to be more so, because of its design and intended usage.

It looks like the switch to making the "UserID on public record" more
anonymous for non-logged in users (hashing their IP for example) could
usefully be brought in, simultaneous with or parallel to IPv6.  As Erik
says, both are desirable verging on necessary at some point, and the one
mitigates against the issues of the other.

It serves a second purpose - a good system providing a more anonymous
"UserID of public record" would also mean that IPv4 and IPv6 users would
have similar "names" in the public record and block lists, meaning that the
same tools and interfaces would work equally with both.  This would
simplify matters for future as well.

Without second guessing a suitable method, I would like to see unlogged-in
users represented by a "name" of the form "IP user XXXXXXX" or "Not logged
in YYYYY" or some such; there would be difficulties in that we want similar
IPs to look similar without providing easy ways to identify the genuine
underlying IP (eg by noticing other similar XXXX's whose IPs are known).
It's also going to have implications for vandalism and abuse related
activities, where it is often helpful that action is easily identified as a
similar IP.  It would be nice not to lose that sense of "similar IP" while
not exposing the genuine IP.

Choice of method is a technical matter, I'd suggest if we move on both,
then hopefully IPv6 will mark a step where anonymity improves and is
available to logged in and not logged in users.   But either way, IPv6 does
have privacy implications for non-logged in users. IPv4 did too, but
historically we let it alone and it was less severe. With IPv6 it may not
be, and action would be much more important.

FT2




On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Deryck Chan <[hidden email]>wrote:

> On a separate note about IPv6: I just saw the first IPv6 anon entry
> appearing on my watchlist. It's exciting!
> Deryck
>
> On 13 June 2012 13:43, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Kim Bruning <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > I noticed that my current IPv6 address appears to be assigned
> > > dynamically by XS4ALL. I can probably get static if I choose it. But
> the
> > > dynamic assignment option does alleviate some people's privacy
> > > concerns, right?
> >
> > One particular concern, which isn't really much different from IPv4.
> >
> > And in something like 90% of browser configurations, you're already
> > giving out a semi-static unique string with every request anyway.
> > (see https://panopticlick.eff.org/)
> >
> > The bigger concern for WMF is the possibility for increased privacy.
> >
> > > ps. We all know that everyone needs to switch to IPv6 eventually.
> >
> > Unless IPv7 or IPv8 comes out first.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

Nathan Awrich
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 1:36 PM, FT2 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> IPv6 is designed to operate on a "one IP = one device/connection" (non-NAT)
> basis, far more than IPv4.  Privacy policy coversd "personally identifiable
> information".  An IP becomes personally identifying when it broadly allows
> a person to be identified.  If IPv4 can be "personally identifying" then
> IPv6 is guaranteed to be more so, because of its design and intended usage.
>
> It looks like the switch to making the "UserID on public record" more
> anonymous for non-logged in users (hashing their IP for example) could
> usefully be brought in, simultaneous with or parallel to IPv6.  As Erik
> says, both are desirable verging on necessary at some point, and the one
> mitigates against the issues of the other.
>
> It serves a second purpose - a good system providing a more anonymous
> "UserID of public record" would also mean that IPv4 and IPv6 users would
> have similar "names" in the public record and block lists, meaning that the
> same tools and interfaces would work equally with both.  This would
> simplify matters for future as well.
>
> Without second guessing a suitable method, I would like to see unlogged-in
> users represented by a "name" of the form "IP user XXXXXXX" or "Not logged
> in YYYYY" or some such; there would be difficulties in that we want similar
> IPs to look similar without providing easy ways to identify the genuine
> underlying IP (eg by noticing other similar XXXX's whose IPs are known).
> It's also going to have implications for vandalism and abuse related
> activities, where it is often helpful that action is easily identified as a
> similar IP.  It would be nice not to lose that sense of "similar IP" while
> not exposing the genuine IP.
>
> Choice of method is a technical matter, I'd suggest if we move on both,
> then hopefully IPv6 will mark a step where anonymity improves and is
> available to logged in and not logged in users.   But either way, IPv6 does
> have privacy implications for non-logged in users. IPv4 did too, but
> historically we let it alone and it was less severe. With IPv6 it may not
> be, and action would be much more important.
>
> FT2
>
>
Why is "improving anonymity" a goal? Our privacy policy governs the
disclosure of non-public information, but the IP addresses of editors
without an account have always been effectively public. Are IP editors
clamoring for more privacy? Is masking IPv6 addresses more important than
the uses to which IP addresses are currently put? Is masking a better way
to solve the problem of potentially more identifiable information in IPv6
than, say, a more prominent disclosure and disclaimer? Would masking the IP
addresses only for logged-out users be a worthwhile change, given the ease
of registering an account? Would they remain masked in the histories of
project dumps? There are a lot of questions to answer here before it's
reasonable to start suggesting changes be made, and these are only some.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

Risker
On 13 June 2012 14:09, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> <snipping FT2's comment>
>


> Why is "improving anonymity" a goal? Our privacy policy governs the
> disclosure of non-public information, but the IP addresses of editors
> without an account have always been effectively public. Are IP editors
> clamoring for more privacy? Is masking IPv6 addresses more important than
> the uses to which IP addresses are currently put? Is masking a better way
> to solve the problem of potentially more identifiable information in IPv6
> than, say, a more prominent disclosure and disclaimer? Would masking the IP
> addresses only for logged-out users be a worthwhile change, given the ease
> of registering an account? Would they remain masked in the histories of
> project dumps? There are a lot of questions to answer here before it's
> reasonable to start suggesting changes be made, and these are only some.
>
>
>
I believe that FT2 is saying that we should seriously consider masking the
*publicly viewable* IPv6 addresses.  The only reason that we publish the IP
addresses of any logged-out user is for attribution purposes, although some
use it for other reasons (both positive and nefarious).  Quite honestly, it
doesn't matter what information is put in place in the publicly viewable
logs, provided it's consistent.

Risker
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
123