Re: [ietf-privacy] Accurate history

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Vasilenko,
At 02:22 AM 07-11-2021, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
>The context was about IPv6 addressing only, not the privacy on the 
>general scope.
>The second half of IPv6 address bits (64 from 128) are used only for 
>privacy now. RFC 8981.
>IPv6 is 64-bit addressing architecture because of this, not 128 as 
>many believe.
>The host generates different pseudo-random IIDs (64-bits) and uses 
>them to create many temporary addresses for different sessions.
>Keith Moore mentioned that it is privacy. Hence, the good wastage of 
>(2^64-1)/2^64 of IPv6 address space.
>I was arguing that it is fake privacy. Hence, not a justification to 
>waste so huge address space.

Thanks for the clarification about the privacy comment.

The address size of IPv6 is described as 128 bits in RFC 2460.  I 
suggest looking at "wastage" [1] from an address allocation 
perspective [2] instead of an address space perspective.  That might 
make discussion of other issues, e.g. privacy, less difficult.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. There were probably some assumptions which made sense when the 
protocol was designed.
2. The allocation of addresses has an impact on privacy.