Pekka Savola wrote:
...
* I hope the problem statement above justifies the use of privacy
addresses for ULAs
I'm not so sure: so, you'd assume that the evil enterprise
administrator would be eavesdropping and correlating enterprise's
internal traffic, or the enterprise's internal web servers would be
correlating the behaviour?
As far as I can see, it's exactly the opposite -- privacy extensions
should not be enabled by default for ULAs.
Certainly not by default; the default IID for ULAs is whatever it is
for any other native IPv6 address. Actually, it will be a matter of
corporate IT policy what IIDs are used within an enterprise network.
As draft-vandevelde-v6ops-nap-00.txt discusses, privacy addresses
will be useful in enterprise networks for use with global prefixes,
but there is no obvious need to use them with ULA prefixes.
But I don't find anything in draft-ietf-ipv6-privacy-addrs-v2-00
that makes privacy addresses a default, unless the implementer
happens to make that a configuration choice, which isn't the
IETF's decision.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
