I'm sorry, but while I agree we have to think outside the corporate environment, I think we have to think way outside and we need to remember the kind of reasons why privacy exists, before saying the privacy extensions are only to keep a few hundred people happy.
To give just one example, homosexuality still carries the death penalty in 9 countries. While I know there are other ways of tracking people online, I'd really prefer it if we didn't make it too easy for someone enforcing those laws to see who had used their pay-as-you-go smart phone to visit websites where guys would like to meet other guys, then a day later renewed their state car tax/insurance with the same phone. So while I agree from a technical stand point a network will be much easier to run if addresses are static, I think that not everyone that requires privacy have technically knowledge to understand the difference or make the change. My take is, if available, default to using the privacy address extensions, with corporations using group policy, or other tools to change as needed. I also think OS implementations SHOULD inform the user when a change from the privacy extensions has been enforced on the network. Alex
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
