Hi,
----- Original Message ----- > From: Ole Troan <otr...@employees.org> > To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> > Cc: Fernando Gont <fg...@si6networks.com>; "6...@ietf.org" <6...@ietf.org>; > Dave Thaler <dtha...@microsoft.com> > Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013 6:59 PM > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses: Document title > >>> >>> I will observe that Alissa's term "random per-network" > isn't in any of the possibilities >>> below and the reasons given wouldn't apply if that term were used. > Perhaps that >>> could be used in a title? >> >> Nah. Too complex for a title, and "random" is a bad word - you > should always >> say pseudo-random or (more pedantic) uniformly distributed. >> >> IMHO the current title is clearest. > > these addresses have the following properties: > - stable per link > - randomly generated as opposed to based on a MAC address. > (making scanning attacks harder, makes tracking across links harder) > - intended to replace existing EUI-64 identifiers > > truth in advertising; given that these addresses are meant to be used 'in > public', what is > "privacy enhanced" about them? > > the use of "privacy" confuses it with RFC4941 addresses, which these > addresses do not replace. > > "Stable per-network Addresses for IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration > (SPN-SLAAC)"? > Why does this method have to be limited to SLAAC, or rather, wouldn't describing it as SLAAC related imply that this or a similar technique can't be used with DHCPv6 or any other address configuration methods? While DHCPv6 assigned addresses are naturally per-subnet, I'd think the IID generation techniques described should be an option for DHCPv6 provided addresses e.g., different IIDs are generated for different subnets by the DHCPv6 server even when the client provides the same DUID. It's starting to seem to me that more clearly separating address generation methods from address configuration methods would be worth while. If I statically configure an address that complies with this algorithm (perhaps because my host doesn't yet implement the SLAAC method of configuring them), is it a "stable privacy address" (or what ever name it ends up with)? In practice I'd probably still call it a "stable privacy address". Regards, Mark. > no hat, > Ole > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
