On Feb 24, 2011, at 6:19 AM, Yu Hua bing wrote: > > Hello, what do you think of this draft? > <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yhb-6man-ra-privacy-flag/>
I don't see why using A=0 in the PIO is insufficient for this purpose. That said, I also think a huge flaw in the draft is that existing hosts interpret the currently unused and reserved bit in the reverse sense, i.e. that privacy addresses are allowed when the value is zero. If you want to propose a flag that expressly allows SLAAC without RFC 4941 privacy addresses, then the sense of the bit needs to be reversed. For example, the conceptual variable would be DisablePrivacyAddrs, and the bit in the PIO would be named the NoPrivacy flag. -- james woodyatt <j...@apple.com> member of technical staff, core os networking -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
