Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Tue, 27 March 2012 08:15 UTC
Return-Path: <prvs=1433caa07d=jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
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 0430B21F883D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 01:15:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 AqOqDcgp1-oi for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 01:15:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from consulintel.es (mail.consulintel.es [213.172.48.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23DA921F8844 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 01:15:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=consulintel.es; s=MDaemon; t=1332835950; x=1333440750; q=dns/txt; h=DomainKey-Signature: Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic: In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding: Reply-To; bh=kKijG5L9Tfl2roUkGsC2uR1DG49KunXIOUmAbMlmCIU=; b=oYO 00Nd5UmnKhYj1ogEkMlyDsfOS41Kv7pkpV6YoRmlvBlnwXpCb/Gfm2m8miKvHdHv 7Tok1ApoB0PaPqr3LYq2bmwRj/NjWoJp+iHpXa+PvGtsE0IjG+9BnGWdA6An03Dl dGZT8/7tReo2ZDFN6UKcPyMgKUhhO6RVTGEOSkq0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=MDaemon; d=consulintel.es; c=simple; q=dns; h=from:message-id; b=Ld5W+1o3qn+iy3jcv8BnvVPztpdbEV4DZMlKR/ZFBrb7r4Oqu4jTA/NkNUg4 RNBnD86hbS08qcQ8oMoHltJH1LjZYxtSj2cqIzXrprnRh2gxOBq/TD9bI Qyy6YO2KtRlDj3arC8p3B1TRQwf5b7shJioeqf+lB8f5SQMbXzKea8=;
X-MDAV-Processed: consulintel.es, Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:12:30 +0200
Received: from [130.129.81.5] by consulintel.es (MDaemon PRO v11.0.3) with ESMTP id md50004132570.msg for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:12:29 +0200
X-Spam-Processed: consulintel.es, Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:12:29 +0200 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source)
X-MDPtrLookup-Result: pass dns.ptr=dhcp-5105.meeting.ietf.org (ip=130.129.81.5) (consulintel.es)
X-Authenticated-Sender: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-HashCash: 1:20:120327:md50004132570::NYpbKzLBBLDiWgLY:00001Gad
X-MDRemoteIP: 130.129.81.5
X-Return-Path: prvs=1433caa07d=jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-Envelope-From: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: ipv6@ietf.org
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:15:14 +0200
Subject: Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Message-ID: <CB9742C1.6BBAE%jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
Thread-Topic: 3484bis and privacy addresses
In-Reply-To: <4F7175AC.3000501@forthnetgroup.gr>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
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 08:15:26 -0000
That was my point, just to make sure that it is not misunderstood, I added the DNS comment as my expectation for apps requiring stable public addresses. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou <achatz@forthnetgroup.gr> Responder a: <achatz@forthnetgroup.gr> Fecha: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:09:16 +0200 Para: <ipv6@ietf.org> CC: Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Asunto: Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses >Maybe i have misunderstood something, but how does DNS interfere with >source address selection? > >I would go with option A. >I would even prefer to limit even more the usage of temporary addresses, >but that's another talk. > >-- >Tassos > > >On 27/3/2012 9:41 πμ, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: >> Hi Brian, >> >> I think by default privacy addresses (option B) should be selected. >> >> It is up to applications that require "stable" addresses to force the >> other way around, and a quick guess is that this kind of applications >> already do it by means of selecting a DNS name that should typically >>have >> already a global stable address. >> >> Regards, >> Jordi >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Mensaje original----- >> De: Brian Haberman<brian@innovationslab.net> >> Responder a:<brian@innovationslab.net> >> Fecha: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 03:33:48 -0400 >> Para:<ipv6@ietf.org> >> Asunto: 3484bis and privacy addresses >> >>> All, >>> The chairs would like to get a sense of the working group on >>> changing the current (defined 3484) model of preferring public >>>addresses >>> over privacy addresses during the address selection process. RFC 3484 >>> prefers public addresses with the ability (MAY) of an implementation to >>> reverse the preference. The suggestion has been made to reverse that >>> preference in 3484bis (prefer privacy addresses over public ones). >>> Regardless, the document will allow implementers/users to reverse the >>> default preference. >>> >>> Please state your preference for one of the following default >>> options : >>> >>> A. Prefer public addresses over privacy addresses >>> >>> B. Prefer privacy addresses over public addresses >>> >>> Regards, >>> Brian, Bob,& Ole >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >>> ipv6@ietf.org >>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> ********************************************** >> IPv4 is over >> Are you ready for the new Internet ? >> http://www.consulintel.es >> The IPv6 Company >> >> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or >>confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the >>individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be >>aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents >>of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >> ipv6@ietf.org >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >ipv6@ietf.org >Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >-------------------------------------------------------------------- ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Jong-Hyouk Lee
- 3484bis and privacy addresses Brian Haberman
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Arifumi Matsumoto
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Tassos Chatzithomaoglou
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Teemu Savolainen
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Francis Dupont
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Mohacsi Janos
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Tim Chown
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Roland Bless
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Samita Chakrabarti
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Simon Perreault
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Alex Abrahams
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Tina TSOU
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Wuyts Carl
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Karl Auer
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Karl Auer
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Fernando Gont
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Francis Dupont
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Fernando Gont
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Brian Haberman
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Fernando Gont
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Ray Hunter
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Fernando Gont
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Ray Hunter
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Sander Steffann
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Dominik Elsbroek
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Karl Auer
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses STARK, BARBARA H
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Karl Auer
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Roger Jørgensen
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Francis Dupont
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses jonne.soininen
- Re: Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Ray Hunter
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Doug Barton
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses t.petch
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Alex Abrahams
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Doug Barton
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Mark Andrews
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Fernando Gont
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Dave Thaler
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Ray Hunter
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses james woodyatt
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Ray Hunter
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Dave Thaler
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Brian E Carpenter
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Dave Thaler
- Re: RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Ray Hunter
- RE: RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Dave Thaler
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Ray Hunter
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Dave Thaler
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Ray Hunter
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Dave Thaler
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Dave Thaler
- Re: RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Ray Hunter
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Arifumi Matsumoto