Le 2013-02-04 à 10:54, Fernando Gont <fg...@si6networks.com> a écrit :
> On 02/04/2013 05:38 AM, Rémi Després wrote: >> >> (*) It remains that IIDs having u=1 SHOULD be unique, i.e. with rare >> enough exceptions. This is somewhat similar to the expectation that >> ULA collisions shouldn't be seen). >> >> This theoretical unicity has been extensively used to assign stable >> IIDs, without administrative action, to hosts that have no privacy >> constraints requiring the opposite. > > If anything, privacy should be an "opt out", rather as an "opt in". Same view. IIDs derived by default from IEEE assigned MAC addresses is a good to have. RD > > In scenarios where privacy matters a lot, if our default policy is "no > privacy", those users "opting in" for privacy would be flagged as > "suspicious" just for the act of "opting in". > > Cheers, > -- > Fernando Gont > SI6 Networks > e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com > PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
