#1: Proper source for an "Interface Identifier"
Version -06 of the document includes the "interface index" in the
expression "F()" that generate the stable privacy IIDs. It has been noted
that interface indexes might not be stable, and that, in any case,
mandating a specific source for tan "in
Brian,
thank you for your review.
I posted a revision to reflect your suggestions.
Regarding the section 3, I changed several sentences, to reduce
implementors' confusion, and to serve better for uniform implementation
behavior.
Best regards,
A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-6man-addr-sele
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 : Distributing Address Selection Policy using DHCPv6
Author(s) : Arifumi Matsumoto
On 29 Apr 2013, at 20:39, Ray Hunter wrote:
> Christian Huitema wrote:
>>> The "problem" here is that don't have all the names/IDs we'd like. For
>>> example, using the MAC address as the Interface_ID would do for this
>>> purpose... but the the IPv6 address is tied to the MAC address, and woul
On 04/29/2013 07:04 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>>> Let's assume that
>>> there are 2 broad categories that cover a statistically significant
>>> percentage of the possible use cases, home and business. I don't see any
>>> scenario where the home user would be benefited from stable privacy
>>> addresses
Hosnieh,
am Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:17:43PM +0200 hast du folgendes geschrieben:
> I guess that we are at an impasse again. I just want to make it clear to
> everyone that this proposed draft of yours doesn't really do anything
> substantial for privacy issues and I find it misleading to mention p
All,
I just want everyone to be aware that I have stopped the
publication process on this document and sent it back to the WG. There
was significant feedback that I felt needed to be dealt with and that
the resulting changes may alter the document significantly. The author
and the docum
On 04/29/2013 01:12 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
On 04/29/2013 05:00 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
I only peripherally followed the early discussion about this topic (only
so many hours in the day). I confess that I never "got" the need for
this, but lots of people seemed enthusiastic about it, so I put it
Fernando,
I guess that we are at an impasse again. I just want to make it clear to
everyone that this proposed draft of yours doesn't really do anything
substantial for privacy issues and I find it misleading to mention privacy
in the title. I too am extremely busy and cannot afford to devote any
Hosnieh,
Quite a few times I have responded to your comments, and have even
provided pointers to publicly-available papers that you seem to have
ignored.
I disagree with your comments below... but cannot really invest more
time in writing responses you'll ignore.
This I-D improves at least two p
On 04/29/2013 05:00 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> I only peripherally followed the early discussion about this topic (only
> so many hours in the day). I confess that I never "got" the need for
> this, but lots of people seemed enthusiastic about it, so I put it in
> the category of things to figure out
On 04/29/2013 12:39 PM, Ray Hunter wrote:
Christian Huitema wrote:
The "problem" here is that don't have all the names/IDs we'd like. For example,
using the MAC address as the Interface_ID would do for this
purpose... but the the IPv6 address is tied to the MAC address, and would
change upon r
On 04/29/2013 12:03 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
>> The "problem" here is that don't have all the names/IDs we'd like.
>> For example, using the MAC address as the Interface_ID would do for
>> this purpose... but the the IPv6 address is tied to the MAC
>> address, and would change upon replacement
Christian Huitema wrote:
>> The "problem" here is that don't have all the names/IDs we'd like. For
>> example, using the MAC address as the Interface_ID would do for this
>> purpose... but the the IPv6 address is tied to the MAC address, and would
>> change upon replacement of the NIC (which is
> The "problem" here is that don't have all the names/IDs we'd like. For
> example, using the MAC address as the Interface_ID would do for this
> purpose... but the the IPv6 address is tied to the MAC address, and would
> change upon replacement of the NIC (which is generally undesirable)...
Un
Dear Mark
>So privacy and security are relative, not absolute. I think this provides
better privacy compared to the use of MAC addresses for IIDs
Unfortunately that answer is not exactly true. As I explained in my last
messages, it is really related to the lifetime of the router prefix. In
reali
On 04/29/2013 01:47 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
>> What I keep saying is this rfc draft does not have any effect on
>> privacy and everything related to the router prefix.
>>
>
> So privacy and security are relative, not absolute. I think this
> provides better privacy compared to the use of MAC addres
On 04/29/2013 01:13 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
>>> This gets a bit interesting when thinking about the USB NIC
>>> situation. Plugging the USB NIC into different USB slots would
>>> change the interface ID if the slot is used to assign it a
>>> persistent interface ID.
>>
>> I'd argue that this would
18 matches
Mail list logo
