On 05/24/2013 03:32 PM, Hosnieh Rafiee wrote: > about RFC 4941. You just used the current implementations with their current > problems. The reason that I wrote this draft was that the "stable addresses" > wanted to keep its IID within the same network and not assign several IIDs > within the same networks, in contrary with RFC 4941.
This is plain wrong. RFC4941 calls for stable *and* temporary addresses. draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses improves the current stable addresses. You keep making statements that you don't back in any way... and that's an inappropriate way of having a technical discussion. > In my opinion, there is > problems of leakage of users' private information such as bank accounts, > names, pictures, etc during the time that the node has the same IID. This > problem is more remarkable when the time the node is in the same network for > a long time or permanently. Please add and elaborate on this in your I-D, because I don't follow the relationship between bank accounts and IPv6 addresses. 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
