Re: Topic IPv6

Alexander Nevalennyy <avnevalenniy@gmail.com> Mon, 21 November 2016 14:39 UTC

Return-Path: <avnevalenniy@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 993311293F9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 06:39:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O2Q0iUdBaBI8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 06:39:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x231.google.com (mail-qk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5D831294FC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 06:39:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x231.google.com with SMTP id q130so352836137qke.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 06:39:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=cNNqBNS51kQ8WnimnJrrzQJKamkRPfWogAEVo53B+pI=; b=Z1w03I/HpEgq1/Ysa7FD+fs2Ma0Pt1rEGxoIUriluO0f/XN3yyMGcO3w9AaN0Gft0K 3WkIIeZkjPp31hAH0SKEApEsG29kPi+ec+ocMBx4HCLiW51STThqB15JTXqvNTZqwZl+ SHWHHK9hd71JtxxFmyZWhjWTdGMxRUHkhIjafeQ7AexRlTxwH0VP4vW97h5YnDq4+vkx V/0am+s3FRa1aLbRFKYca1/6BObXEdpW8OEudEih5A50GCW+AORyyajO6WzG8bbSOtEs nU3QmCZYD/RBfzt9Z4jh6wgVuK7vx+a+jaZHkININp4YdoHoqktjfOrmMPM3Z0CJufrg hXEg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=cNNqBNS51kQ8WnimnJrrzQJKamkRPfWogAEVo53B+pI=; b=SPrkkuKaaKQ2j9/5cMTOTj0rrtv+lwGkkt4dsoUwIYoLuqtV2vfAyK4noQRcacyfJD lqkk9BIjJgNaymcEnxYfPF8dePQdcPkBW/Z8360xy0xfgN78N+/xrdXNs0ApGWbfGyoB wanWsyg5bEhZJtAhAoJwiSG/bnS44u8+sfzhUDvEnLyezXaRWY/gytRzx7UVCr4gdR0S rdYWghF+Hq3vYRfbyNPeMuiKQapx6V9SMCn+FPYHyJ2gDEa0m88yDPxNl8T3i+t4t1AD u9C6gMJ3UCFBHuL3voW6qWFEHHIMgRbvc7/8YGvZ8ZM8LMhT2jN9sYKu5PfRAT2OQ1F0 0fMQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC017SFR5XaSvWEqSyMvBLJBpUM+oKpgYSa0GLrITckulBAYJh0N5slx92UAya7bV5UXIDB6dDpwoHKMwOQ==
X-Received: by 10.55.18.30 with SMTP id c30mr17910019qkh.213.1479739177893; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 06:39:37 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.12.170.20 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 06:39:37 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20161121135800.hj773gvjquay7ka5@nic.fr>
References: <CAGxDXJ9L-Zfu+Wn8MogOn_yKgDKKuUVyqNp5mxNYaJZd-371qA@mail.gmail.com> <20161121135800.hj773gvjquay7ka5@nic.fr>
From: Alexander Nevalennyy <avnevalenniy@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 17:39:37 +0300
Message-ID: <CAGxDXJ_j+U2yngKPqK+ciHSG9B2CsTRYPq8swqbVZZBOfYB37Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Topic IPv6
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114757f80f0ea20541d0a03a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/oRSxsF1JJfCHMiXHu91qnem1lgs>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:39:40 -0000

Dear Stephane,

So far as I understood, I asked some help to share my idea to IETF in right
way.
Jordi answered me and it was "support"=help. It would be rude if I said
nothing.

1. Again, it is not about privacy. When you work with IPv6 address, nobody
knows that it was you, like with numbers of cell phones (if you did not
share information).

3. It is important in two ways: identification of device and possibility to
make access only for given device.

6. I have written qualification dissertation about it = 80 pages. However,
I can not translate right now, because of you.


Please, say hello for people, which you do not know. We are here to discuss
but not only criticize (it is too simple).

Regards, Alexander.

2016-11-21 16:58 GMT+03:00 Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>:

> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 04:49:02PM +0300,
>  Alexander Nevalennyy <avnevalenniy@gmail.com> wrote
>  a message of 45 lines which said:
>
> > Thank you for your opinion and fast support, Jordi.
>
> Jordi tried to patiently explain, I'm not sure you can call his
> message "support".
>
> > 1. I am not sure that about privacy. Nobody need your IP while you do not
> > do something wrong.
>
> Usual argument from the police ("if you want privacy, it means you are
> a criminal trying to hide something"). You will have a hard time
> convincing people to buy it.
>
> > 3. I meant usage of SLAAC for all ip-addresses (now it is optional).
>
> And why? I mean, servers typically use static non-SLAAC addresses. Why
> should they change?
>
> > Link is below:
> > http://www.slideshare.net/phdays/ipv6-35204784
>
> 6 slides can hardly be regarded as a proposal worth of IETF time.
>
> > Should I try to write to WG called ipsecme?
>
> Please first learn to respond to emails (instead of starting a new
> thread each time).
>
>