On 09/03/2011 03:49 p.m., Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> 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.
The requirements in draft-gont-6man-managing-privacy-extensions are SHOULDs, for this very reason. How about including some text that explicitly states that a host can always override the desired policy (with a system toggle) if it desires to do so? Thanks! Best regards, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@acm.org PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
