Hi, Mikael,
On 09/03/2011 08:17 a.m., Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
I recommend that folks read the above draft. I haven't seen the
I-D announcement get cross-posted to the IPv6 WG, perhaps due to
the volume of recent I-D postings, and the topic seems relevant.
I don't think it solves what it
Folks,
I've just realized that I had submitted an old version of the I-D. So
I've rev'ed the document and resubmitted it. -- The change log in the
appendix describes the changes since version -00.
Any comments will be more than welcome.
P.S.: There's still quite a bit of text that we need to
On 09/03/2011 09:19 a.m., huabing yu wrote:
(1)If H (Hardware-derived addresses) flag is 1, it indicates that
the host SHOULD generate hardware-derived addresses, and doesn't
generate privacy addresses.
(2)If H (Hardware-derived addresses) flag is 0, the author say that
this bit indicates
On 09/03/2011 11:57 a.m., 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.
This was
Hi, Ran,
On 09/03/2011 12:51 p.m., RJ Atkinson wrote:
Just because privacy extensions is the only address widely seen
today as being non-EUI64, doesn't mean that if you disable privacy,
you get only single EUI64.
The above is a very helpful clarification.
Based on that, I agree with
On 09/03/2011 03:49 p.m., Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I don't think it solves what it thinks it solves, but if this REALLY
should be implemented, it's my initial thinking that the H flag should
be a MUST demand to only have ONE and only one MAC-based IPv6 address
according to EUI64. I would
On 09/03/2011 08:17 a.m., Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
I recommend that folks read the above draft. I haven't seen the
I-D announcement get cross-posted to the IPv6 WG, perhaps due to
the volume of recent I-D postings, and the topic seems relevant.
I don't think it solves what it thinks it
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 08:01, Mark Townsley m...@townsley.net
wrote:
On Mar 11, 2011, at 3:32 AM, Christian Huitema wrote:
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
Blue sky: Could the SP allow privacy addresses, at least for global
use, and log its own mappings between privacy addressses and MACs or
other persistent identifiers? Then it can always trace back to
determine who did what if necessary.
I'm sure service providers *could* do this. But it's
It doesn't. The I-D aims at allowing routers specify which policy they want
hosts to employ when generating their IPv6 addresses.
Uh? I definitely don't want to give the router at Starbucks the means to
specify the privacy configuration of my laptop.
I understand that corporation want to
On 03/12/2011 16:44, Christian Huitema wrote:
It doesn't. The I-D aims at allowing routers specify which policy they want
hosts to employ when generating their IPv6 addresses.
Uh? I definitely don't want to give the router at Starbucks the means to
specify the privacy configuration of my
On 12/03/2011 09:44 p.m., Christian Huitema wrote:
It doesn't. The I-D aims at allowing routers specify which policy
they want hosts to employ when generating their IPv6 addresses.
Uh? I definitely don't want to give the router at Starbucks the means
to specify the privacy configuration of
Hi, James,
On 09/03/2011 04:08 p.m., james woodyatt wrote:
About the H-bit in the PIO it proposes, the draft says this:
When set, this bit indicates that hardware-derived addresses SHOULD
be used when configuring IPv6 addresses as a result of Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration. When not
On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 21:57:14 -0300
Fernando Gont ferna...@gont.com.ar wrote:
On 12/03/2011 09:44 p.m., Christian Huitema wrote:
It doesn't. The I-D aims at allowing routers specify which policy
they want hosts to employ when generating their IPv6 addresses.
Uh? I definitely don't want
It doesn't. The I-D aims at allowing routers specify which policy they want
hosts to employ when generating their IPv6 addresses.
Uh? I definitely don't want to give the router at Starbucks the means to
specify the privacy configuration of my laptop.
I understand that corporation want
15 matches
Mail list logo
