IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses

Wuyts Carl <Carl.Wuyts@technicolor.com> Tue, 27 March 2012 08:49 UTC

Return-Path: <Carl.Wuyts@technicolor.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F36921F880B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 01:49:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.269
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.269 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.330, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8Uw7iab-SPg2 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 01:49:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na3sys009aog103.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog103.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.71]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BB3E21F8802 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 01:49:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mopesedge02.eu.thmulti.com ([129.35.174.203]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob103.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT3F+/insiscQuzxbznnRJPifmfw1X+lT@postini.com; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 01:49:06 PDT
Received: from MOPESMAILHC03.eu.thmulti.com (141.11.100.132) by mopesedge02.eu.thmulti.com (141.11.253.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.192.1; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:48:18 +0200
Received: from MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com ([169.254.155.121]) by MOPESMAILHC03.eu.thmulti.com ([141.11.100.132]) with mapi; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:48:27 +0200
From: Wuyts Carl <Carl.Wuyts@technicolor.com>
To: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:48:25 +0200
Subject: RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses
Thread-Topic: 3484bis and privacy addresses
Thread-Index: Ac0L8buKnXhzFC3+TUqmnxG4+ZJ/+wABJyjg
Message-ID: <867F4B6A1672E541A94676D556793ACD0EB9995616@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com>
References: Your message of Tue, 27 Mar 2012 03:33:48 EDT. <4F716D5C.40402@innovationslab.net> <201203270815.q2R8F1Rf003030@givry.fdupont.fr>
In-Reply-To: <201203270815.q2R8F1Rf003030@givry.fdupont.fr>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 02:45:40 -0700
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 08:49:07 -0000

+1 for option A

Carl Wuyts
GCD System Architect Networking
CONNECT DIVISION
carl.wuyts@technicolor.com
tel.: +32 3 443 65 90

Prins Boudewijnlaan 47  -  2650 Edegem  -  Belgium
Technicolor Delivery Technologies Belgium NV
Registered office (maatschappelijke zetel): Prins Boudewijnlaan 47, 2650 Edegem, Belgium
Company registration number (ondernemingsnummer): 0428837295 - RPR Antwerpen

Help preserve the color of our world - Think before you print.




-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Francis Dupont
Sent: dinsdag 27 maart 2012 10:15
To: Brian Haberman
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses 

 In your previous mail you wrote:

>  A. Prefer public addresses over privacy addresses
>  
>  B. Prefer privacy addresses over public addresses

=> I voted A but I have no strong opinion (I think the privacy addresses is a silly response to a silly concern. BTW as using the Free ISP 6rd I get a fixed /64 prefix with my fixed IPv4 address embedded in it, so privacy addresses can only bring trouble to me :-).

My question is different and more for you as an IAB member: is this a chance to get the address selection document (currently RFC 3484) downgraded as a BCP (from its current standard track) so it will take less years to be updated the next time?

Note it was known from beginning the RFC 3484 should have never been in the standard track, and it was obsolete as soon as being published...

Thanks

Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email