A categorically. I think that Ray summarises the arguments well below. I only disagree with him in that I see the arguments applying outside the corporate world as well.
I think too that Ray is spot on with a later post about "how to operate all of these fancy new features of IPv6." Yup, we really need to start rolling out IPv6 and find out what works. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Hunter" <ray.hun...@globis.net> To: "Brian Haberman" <br...@innovationslab.net> Cc: <ipv6@ietf.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 7:00 PM Subject: Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses > From the corporate World: option A as default, with local user > controlled option to override. > > RFC3484 (which references RFC3041) "Temporary addresses" are a menace to > fault finding, audit, logging, firewall rules, filtering, QoS matching, > conformance: anywhere where an ACL or stable address is used today. Sure > we shouldn't use fixed/stable IP literals, but we do. And in many cases > there aren't any practical alternatives in today's products, so the IP > address is the lowest common denominator used to identify a machine (and > dare I say even "a user" in some circumstances). > > Also not sure if any DHCPv6 server implementations actually provide > DHCPv6 assigned temporary addresses in practice. > > My take on this is that a set of a few hundred individual persons who > are worried about privacy are more likely to be able to control their > own particular machines to correctly override the "default off" setting > than a single corporate network manager is to be able to guarantee > overriding a "default on" setting on 100% of 10000 machines attached to > their network. > > regards, > RayH > > Brian Haberman wrote: > > <div class="moz-text-flowed">All, > > The chairs would like to get a sense of the working group on > > changing the current (defined 3484) model of preferring public > > addresses over privacy addresses during the address selection > > process. RFC 3484 prefers public addresses with the ability (MAY) of > > an implementation to reverse the preference. The suggestion has been > > made to reverse that preference in 3484bis (prefer privacy addresses > > over public ones). Regardless, the document will allow > > implementers/users to reverse the default preference. > > > > Please state your preference for one of the following default > > options : > > > > A. Prefer public addresses over privacy addresses > > > > B. Prefer privacy addresses over public addresses > > > > Regards, > > Brian, Bob, & Ole > > > > </div> > > -- > Ray Hunter > ray.hun...@globis.net > Globis Consulting BV, Fazantlaan 23, 5613CB Eindhoven NL, > Registered at the KvK, Eindhoven, under number BV 17098279 > mobile: +31 620 363864 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
