Hi, Dan, On 10/03/2011 04:57 p.m., Dan Wing wrote: >> Doesn't a combination of RFC4941 and NPTv6 produce the necessary >> privacy over both parts of the IPv6 address? >> (BTW thats a question from an interested observer new to this topic, >> not a statement - I started following this thread and ended up digging >> around in the RFCs and drafts the thread uncovered) > > RFC4941 by itself does the trick. > > But draft-gont-6man-managing-privacy-extensions (the subject of > this thread) says "you can't use RFC4941".
It doesn't. The I-D aims at allowing routers specify which policy they want hosts to employ when generating their IPv6 addresses. Version -01 of the document probably makes this even more clear: the router can actually advice nodes to use privacy addresses. -- As an example, please note that while some stacks implement "privacy extensions", they do not enable them by default. Thus, use of the mechanism specified in this document could result in those boxes *enabling*¨privacy addresses (if desired). This document aims to improve the ability of the network administrator of managing the generation of IPv6 addresses. It is not mean, per se, to disable privacy addresses. Thanks, -- 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
