On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, Ran Atkinson wrote:
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gont-6man-managing-privacy-extensions-00.txt> I recommend that folks read the above draft. I haven't seen the I-D announcement get cross-posted to the IPv6 WG, perhaps due to the volume of recent I-D postings, and the topic seems relevant.
I don't think it solves what it thinks it solves, but if this REALLY should be implemented, it's my initial thinking that the H flag should be a MUST demand to only have ONE and only one MAC-based IPv6 address according to EUI64. I would appreciate some reasoning in the draft why this was chosen as a SHOULD option.
I do not like the "disable Privacy"-flag thinking at all and I really oppose going with that solution.
-- 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
