On Fri, 4 Mar 2011, RJ Atkinson wrote:
I hope the situation is more clear now. Thanks for your follow-up questions and comments.
Well, I still oppose it. Either we have SLAAC and then the host is allowed to choose any address it sees fit, or we don't.
If an organisation wants to disallow privacy extensions and still use SLAAC (and trust the host to just allocate one tracable IPv6 address and nothing else), then I hope they have sufficient control over the host and thus can afford to do the registry setting to disallow privacy extensions.
I would have more understanding of your case if the proposal was to implement a flag which said "only use a single EUI64 based IPv6-address and nothing else when doing SLAAC" which by definition would do what you want, but I still don't like this.
I'd much rather make sure vendors implement proper support for DHCPv6 (stateless and stateful) than to fiddle with RAs where the router vendor also has to implement this functionality. Let's try to change RA as few times as possible, please. Let the routers do forwarding of policy-required queries and handle these in a server that is not on the local subnet.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
