Re: [addr-select-dt] about on/off switch of privacy extension

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

On 16 Jul 2010, at 11:27, Arifumi Matsumoto wrote:
> 
> this may be a trivial issue, but let me post it before I forget. :)
> 
> What do you think about putting a on/off bit in the distributing policy
> for controlling client's behavior of privacy address extension.
> 
> I know the privacy extension does harm a lot in a lot of circumstances.
> And, if it is possible, why not provide a way to solve this problem
> at the same time ?

Interesting.

So my personal view with a campus enterprise hat on is I'd like to avoid use of privacy addresses.   The main reason is the same as the reason to use DHCPv6, for accountability.    Of course if use of 802.1x and/or SAVI provides that for autoconf or privacy addresses, we can reconsider.   At the moment 802.1x is common on wireless network but not wired ones.

For managed desktops (or laptops), we can configure privacy addresses off by default in the system build.    Likewise, we *can* configure RFC3484 default policy in our managed desktop builds.    But that is only useful if the same policy applies at all points of attachment on the network and at all times of day.   For RFC3484 policy is may well not do.   For privacy address policy, it probably does.  

If the RFC3484 policy table could distinguish privacy addresses, then their use or prioritisation can be set.   At our site we'd probably like to say in the policy table NEVER use privacy addresses or 6to4 addresses as source addresses.

Tim