On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:49:29 +1300 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > I agree. I sort of accept that an ISP can know my addresses in use, in part because they gave them to me. However, for an ISP to not let me choose if I want to use privacy addresses on the Internet would be completely unacceptable. Regards, Mark. > 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 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
