On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 08:45:54 +0100 (CET)
sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
The common argument from the stateful-only crowd seems to be that
they need to have a log of IPv6 address/MAC addresses for audit
purposes, and therefore think they need to have stateful, database
driven addressing to do
On 10 Mar 2011, at 02:34 , Dan Wing wrote:
Nobody wants it removed in corporate deployments, either.
That statement is far too strong; it simply is not true.
Consider for a moment an IPv6-enabled telephone,
on the desk of a Very Important Person at a company, ...
(Laugh. I don't believe
The common argument from the stateful-only crowd seems to be that
they need to have a log of IPv6 address/MAC addresses for audit
purposes, and therefore think they need to have stateful, database
driven addressing to do that, probably because that is how it has
been done in IPv4.
On Mar 9, 2011 11:34 PM, Dan Wing dw...@cisco.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 10:49 AM
To: Mikael Abrahamsson
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; Ran Atkinson
Subject: Re:
On Mar 10, 2011, at 4:10 AM, Ran Atkinson wrote:
It seems pretty clear that Fred's NPTv6 is going to be deployed in at least
some locations, albeit for entirely different reasons. I'm not sure if that
meets your definition of NAPT66 or not.
It does not. NPTv6 only translates the network
Doesn't a combination of RFC4941 and NPTv6 produce the necessary privacy over
both parts of the IPv6 address?
(BTW thats a question from an interested observer new to this topic, not a
statement - I started following this thread and ended up digging around in the
RFCs and drafts the thread
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Ran Atkinson
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 4:10 AM
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-gont-6man-managing-privacy-extensions-00.txt
On 10 Mar 2011, at 02:34 , Dan Wing wrote:
Nobody
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Paul Chilton
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 10:18 AM
To: james woodyatt
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-gont-6man-managing-privacy-extensions-00.txt
Doesn't a combination of RFC4941
I'm saying the reasons people are tempted to disable RFC4941 are misplaced.
+1
Consider that if I want privacy and you won't let me use RFC4941, I might just
make up a new MAC address each time I connect.
Consider also the effect of unique identifiers on tracking. The MAC address
follows
On 03/09/2011 06:57, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
If you want to know the mac address of the computer who used an IP
address at a certain time, then you need to tell the host to only use
EUI64 based address and nothing else, you don't tell it to disable
privacy extensions. Just because privacy
Pekka Savola pek...@netcore.fi writes:
I have reviewed this document.
Thanks agin!
The most important omission is that RFC4294 changelog is not up-to-date.
This gives a good overview on what has changed and it needs to convey
accurate information.
ACK.
I've just posted a new version. Have
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IETF.
Title : IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis
Author(s) : E. Jankiewicz, et al.
Filename:
12 matches
Mail list logo
