Re: draft-gont-6man-managing-privacy-extensions-00.txt

[Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, huabing yu wrote:

> (1)If "H" ("Hardware-derived addresses") flag is 1, it indicates that
> the host SHOULD generate hardware-derived addresses, and doesn't
> generate privacy addresses.

I think it should indicate that ONLY hw-derived address should be created, 
which by defintion is only ONE, and not more, and this is the ONLY one.

> *I think "DisablePrivacy" proposed by "draft-yhb-6man-ra-privacy-flag-01"*
> *is better than "H",although some people don't like the problem to be
> solved.*

Well, I don't think the problem is solved by these proposals, but if the 
RA standard should be changed, then I want the solution to be what I wrote 
before.

SLAAC means the host can take any address it wants as long as it's not 
already in use. Privacy Extensions is not the only mechanisms that might 
create an address to be used, thus I think the "disable privacy" flag is 
meaningless.

If you want to know the mac address of the computer who used an IP address 
at a certain time, then you need to tell the host to only use EUI64 based 
address and nothing else, you don't tell it to disable privacy extensions. 
Just because privacy extensions is the only address widely seen today as 
being non-EUI64, doesn't mean that if you disable privacy, you get only 
single EUI64.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [e-mail]