Visual RFC.
ALL RFCs / RFC 7043
Read the RFC ↗
RFC 7043 / DNS LINK-LAYER RECORDS

Constrain tracking and address-cloning exposure

06

A stable link-layer address can link changing IP addresses or names over time. Readable address data is not proof of a device’s identity or permission to track its user.

RFC 7043 · § 8EXAMPLE
4 / 4
Constrain tracking and address-cloning exposureSeparate permitted fixture has both a private DNS view and an authorized client. Both gates pass before disclosure. These restrictions mitigate exposure; they do not by themselves encrypt DNS, guarantee anonymity or verify the address’s truth.Stable address data can expose a device over timeauthorized clientprivate DNSPrivate DNS view: YESClient authorized: YESEUI answer permittedBoth restrictions mitigate exposureNo automatic encryption, anonymity or device proofOffline documentation examples only; no real device/user tracked
04
Combine private scope with authorized access

Separate permitted fixture has both a private DNS view and an authorized client. Both gates pass before disclosure. These restrictions mitigate exposure; they do not by themselves encrypt DNS, guarantee anonymity or verify the address’s truth.

Source for this drawing: RFC 7043 · Read RFC section 8 ↗

Protocol participantThreat or exceptionProtocol controlSimplified drawings · precise section references
New to this? Start hereA quick picture + helpful background

A message needs an address.

Think of a packet as a small addressed envelope. Devices pass it onward; transport protocols decide what delivery promises an application gets.

Helpful first, if these ideas are unfamiliar

These pictures are analogies to help you learn. The linked RFC explains the actual rules.

Related RFCs and changes

“Updates” changes part of an earlier RFC. “Obsoletes” replaces it. This list shows selected related documents.

KEY POINT

The RFC recommends that EUI-48 and EUI-64 addresses SHOULD NOT be published in public DNS. This is a recommendation, not an invented universal MUST NOT.

  • The RFC recommends that EUI-48 and EUI-64 addresses SHOULD NOT be published in public DNS. This is a recommendation, not an invented universal MUST NOT.
  • Addresses with Local/Global bit zero are intended as globally unique identifiers, but the RFC notes manufacturing duplication, unauthorized OUI use and configurable spoofing. Publication can expose trackable identities and facilitate MAC cloning.
  • Private namespaces together with access restricted to specific authorized clients can mitigate these concerns. A private-looking name alone supplies neither access control nor automatic encryption.
DETAILS

Fictional offline examples only. EUI records carry supplied address data; they do not authenticate devices, implement IP resolution or authorize tracking. RFC7043 is Informational. The application policies shown are explicitly chosen fixtures.

Read the RFC section ↗

All chapters in RFC 7043

Drawing view

Scroll the drawing to see every part. Playback controls stay above it.

RFC 9700 / CHAPTERS

Chapters

For full details, tables, algorithms, and exceptions, read the original RFC.

RFC status and corrections ↗