On 2011-03-10 00:17, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> 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.
For the reason I just gave against the disable-private flag: this
violates the host's right to use an untraceable address.
It may be that in corporate deployments, that right can be removed.
But removing it for public subscribers would be a political blunder.
Brian
>
> I do not like the "disable Privacy"-flag thinking at all and I really
> oppose going with that solution.
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
