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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 09/03/2011 08:17 a.m., Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

>> I recommend that folks read the above draft.  I haven't seen the
>> I-D announcement get cross-posted to the IPv6 WG, perhaps due to
>> the volume of recent I-D postings, and the topic seems relevant.
> 
> I don't think it solves what it thinks it solves, but if this REALLY
> should be implemented, it's my initial thinking that the H flag should
> be a MUST demand to only have ONE and only one MAC-based IPv6 address
> according to EUI64. I would appreciate some reasoning in the draft why
> this was chosen as a SHOULD option.

I realize I misunderstood your comment.

The intention of the I-D is/was that if the "H" bit is set, you SHOULD
generate your addresses corresponding to this prefix ONLY with according
to EUI64.

The above requirement is a "SHOULD" (rather than a MUST), since a hosts
that has good reasons to do so (e.g., privacy concerns) is allowed to
override the policy specified by the router.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [e-mail] || [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1