Re: Status of the "u" bit for privacy extensions
Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Wed, 19 February 2014 05:19 UTC
Return-Path: <fernando@gont.com.ar>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E11D1A0422 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 21:19:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 ntd43AJ5maEB for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 21:19:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:d10:2000:e::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCEB81A03E6 for <6man@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 21:19:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [2001:5c0:1400:a::12e3] by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <fernando@gont.com.ar>) id 1WFzYr-0005Ws-IE; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 06:19:09 +0100
Message-ID: <53043E50.2010604@gont.com.ar>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 02:17:04 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Florent Fourcot <ietf@flo.fourcot.fr>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Subject: Re: Status of the "u" bit for privacy extensions
References: <53032F9D.50203@flo.fourcot.fr> <53035F12.6090208@si6networks.com> <5303AF2E.3090701@flo.fourcot.fr>
In-Reply-To: <5303AF2E.3090701@flo.fourcot.fr>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/-0j-EyutoH-l_cI-1N5UXPBALEc
Cc: 6man@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 05:19:17 -0000
Florent, On 02/18/2014 04:06 PM, Florent Fourcot wrote: > >> That said, in the light of RFC7136, it would probably make sense to use >> the semantics in RFC7136. > > Thanks Fernando. I'm afraid, it will probably not enough convincing for > Linux kernel developers to change the current behaviour. They need not. If they implement RFC4941, that's what they should be complying with. RFC7136 *has not* updated RFC4941 in this respect. When we did draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses (currently in the RFC Editor queue), we took the advice from RFC7136 and thus treat all 64 bits of the IID as an opaque value. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
- Re: Status of the "u" bit for privacy extensions Florent Fourcot
- Re: Status of the "u" bit for privacy extensions Brian E Carpenter
- Status of the "u" bit for privacy extensions Florent Fourcot
- Re: Status of the "u" bit for privacy extensions Fernando Gont
- Status of the "u" bit for privacy extensions Florent Fourcot
- Re: Status of the "u" bit for privacy extensions Fernando Gont