> I work primarily with customers who implement networks inside their own > borders. Ray is 100% correct that stable addressing for end users is a very high > priority for things like access control, accountability, reporting, SOX, etc. > Whether or not it should be so is an entirely different question. For the middle > of the bell-shaped curve, it IS so.
As I explained in my answer to Ray in my last message, if monitoring and other things are your first priority, then you can use another approach rather than that of RFC 4941. But you cannot say that this RFC will not be used in future because we think that our customers won't want to spend any more pennies on their current systems. It is again their choice. There are also customers who would prefer to use that RFC rather than another approach. What I am trying to do in my draft is give customers, who want to use this RFC 4941, have a better choice of implementation options than they do now (it might be used along with any other approach that is not based on the use of a MAC address) About privacy. The laws of many countries are not concerned with privacy which is actually the opposite of what is true in other countries. An example can be found in the EU where there are two DPDs, one promulgated in 1995 and the other in 2012. Both were concerned with privacy, but after the first one was not interpreted correctly by all countries the second one was promulgated. Your country might be among those countries where privacy makes little sense to them. Some countries talk about privacy, but in action and reality, there is no privacy for users. Regards, Hosnieh -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
