Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses

2012-04-03 Thread Ray Hunter
I can also live with Brian Carpenter's response. In terms of a general default in shipped IPv6 stacks, I prefer B, but it has to be qualified: There MUST be a user option to change this preference. There SHOULD be a network manager option to change this preference. The rationale for this is

Re: [6man] Stable privacy addresses (upcoming rev)

2012-04-03 Thread Fred Baker
On Mar 30, 2012, at 9:20 PM, Fernando Gont wrote: If the regime controls the local-link, then as far as address-tracking is concerned, you're toast. -- They could sniff the network and log the address-MAC mappings, have RAs require you to do DHCPv6 and then have DHCPv6 assign you a

Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses

2012-04-03 Thread JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
At Mon, 2 Apr 2012 23:43:57 +, Dave Thaler dtha...@microsoft.com wrote: I prefer B, and this is what most existing implementations of RFC 3484 seem to already do (i.e., they follow the MAY not the SHOULD) whenever privacy addresses are enabled. I have yet to hear of an implementation of