Dan Wing wrote : >> It would not be an application concern. >> If users want this kind of strong privacy, > > Typically, users don't know or care; more often it is the network > administrator that cares. Agreed. "Users, or network administrators as the case may be," would be better.
>> they activate this >> "extended privacy option" in their hosts. >> Then the stack below applications applies the "one new >> address for each outgoing connection" rule. >> Addresses and ports keep their E2E significance for ALL applications. > > Thanks for the educating me on where this feature would be implemented. I > have long assumed that v6 privacy is something the application would need to > be involved with. > > > Is this functionality already available in Vista and Leopard? I ignore whether the "privacy extension of stateless autoconfiguration" of RFC 4941 is supported. The "one new address per outgoing connection" rule, which I propose here for the fist time, would IMHO be worth implementing in addition to RFC 4941. But some more work to specify it in details would be needed before that. Some support of the idea would be a prerequisite. RD _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
