Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses for the network
Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk> Fri, 24 January 2020 10:58 UTC
Return-Path: <tim.chown@jisc.ac.uk>
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 90E6D1200E5 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 02:58:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=jisc.ac.uk
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 f7wpxa2XXVum for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 02:58:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eu-smtp-delivery-189.mimecast.com (eu-smtp-delivery-189.mimecast.com [207.82.80.189]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA2011200CC for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 02:58:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jisc.ac.uk; s=mimecast20170213; t=1579863534; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=lYbc7F4qMYFcV1+or4maoRV8o4adczCHlk9EK/ZtCDw=; b=FuI6SC+5D5U/Z3CI6CnCP4keFCYIzB08eDjXJfkRPi+Ajii0aOgRK/Agq/p2SnAh/QWv1W 3+0VKnib1kKddcZ3YsXacL5oSsucliKANFPXrARsFBx+s/aWYH7J8qx9a1NydoOmB4X4Oj /+/43xKn3ffIj50B7oZp+M1RefNyIEo=
Received: from EUR05-DB8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-db8eur05lp2109.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.17.109]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id uk-mta-180-kTHq6uw4Ony_khwS66Lo3w-1; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 10:58:50 +0000
Received: from DB6PR0701MB2856.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.168.84.9) by DB6PR0701MB2167.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.168.58.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2686.15; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 10:58:49 +0000
Received: from DB6PR0701MB2856.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::5cf1:d058:1210:950f]) by DB6PR0701MB2856.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::5cf1:d058:1210:950f%3]) with mapi id 15.20.2686.013; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 10:58:49 +0000
From: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>
To: "otroan@employees.org" <otroan@employees.org>
CC: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses for the network
Thread-Topic: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses for the network
Thread-Index: AQHV0cuAf+cCl/1lXUyJflIGA5fqsKf4RoyAgAAD4oCAAVZVHoAABEyAgAAB3AA=
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 10:58:49 +0000
Message-ID: <94B1AF33-7466-4ED0-9BA4-EBA126B97370@jisc.ac.uk>
References: <03C832CE-7282-4320-BF1B-4CB7167FE6BE@employees.org> <e936078e-01f9-0254-a8d0-4095455154ac@si6networks.com> <D85412DF-4B03-4790-9E39-968D50ECF86B@employees.org> <m1iuwJV-0000MAC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <B341FF1B-C559-4D54-B117-A58EB6A3C955@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <B341FF1B-C559-4D54-B117-A58EB6A3C955@employees.org>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.40.2.2.4)
x-originating-ip: [2001:a88:d510:1101:54d1:3f90:8530:1f81]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: c9ec646b-77f6-4e1b-bf0c-08d7a0bc6452
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DB6PR0701MB2167:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DB6PR0701MB216726F89E287C0BFD446AAAD60E0@DB6PR0701MB2167.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 02929ECF07
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(39850400004)(376002)(136003)(396003)(346002)(366004)(189003)(199004)(6916009)(966005)(4326008)(53546011)(6506007)(71200400001)(64756008)(66446008)(81156014)(66556008)(66946007)(6512007)(8676002)(81166006)(91956017)(76116006)(66476007)(5660300002)(54906003)(2906002)(316002)(786003)(86362001)(6486002)(33656002)(2616005)(8936002)(36756003)(478600001)(186003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DB6PR0701MB2167; H:DB6PR0701MB2856.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 2wXvsM0vg0ghWROZzOw5x3Vf+N5gRbUHgTnHqB0Xch40R7O1bcB1e5t34GRYCzzsYtlZGkn6e3SG2s8/Ml7lwFb80qK1bcY6lWieznyL9nplqjMw0ZXRWN9XC1t7xLKtTo9WlT8Aa9cpA2i8YTPgH3dkSZ24HRubslV/J9x2dtHXtcMUVbgJ+NJQkmoA+wRDVHrnS0wSZ5VTwwZH42fTKwU/MyhBh3VrxzaHTtXOsFXXTfemOguMIh9J5TzXEKsp3aeliLtGlO/P2XyY5RwoMhIylvXBc2FcqFKlllMnpVFf+AiB9KXvhBYdugfS7XHwPLigIYy/KYx8H+93p8N4KRk4HYQ781NNf61tqDjRn1BCJpNZe8ITqA7plmooyG6u/FIsBh2pUXcQ/IFXAO1qm0qeXNO5lAPOt/dM8AgixdVzVP7a20rlSNA93qg/H9VYC6fTu89ztVDGMJ85hpyvzOYthTl8dGcIYo0vHslKbMg=
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: jpFkCZtPH+H/x90vXwhJZzXb5/1buXWGL4w9Qqi9uBifx9iw83eW1Z+PyyoAQzK0gQWo1nQQpmQM7VnEMwcCyaR6x8S7CYLZa8gHzsCAuLN4fpJeVRW4xIP5jLA9nDKdGM8dZbG9nTTLzP8v7zsEaW9l7sfrnLYAgnMLqsHexQ1yaUvjMJ8WlcfYhS1lq+8bqeUCc5en8FOrwWRfqwAjrQ==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: jisc.ac.uk
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c9ec646b-77f6-4e1b-bf0c-08d7a0bc6452
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 24 Jan 2020 10:58:49.3334 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 48f9394d-8a14-4d27-82a6-f35f12361205
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: LqFViiTb3Ot6ZYIDzNeAUG1LLN7dfdyhKCtfJ5uf7WwrUkMhRDE1ADSs3kcoDPrpy76i9GXs+CoQksB6aC/2TQ==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB6PR0701MB2167
X-MC-Unique: kTHq6uw4Ony_khwS66Lo3w-1
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
X-Mimecast-Originator: jisc.ac.uk
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_94B1AF3374664ED09BA4EBA126B97370jiscacuk_"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/EcRkOksUtkapk2ccTdul6xjjYVU>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 10:59:00 -0000
On 24 Jan 2020, at 10:52, otroan@employees.org<mailto:otroan@employees.org> wrote: Hi Philip, The question of an address per transport connection is why would you do that? In many IPv4 installations, the NAT box has state per flow. So having an IPv6 address per transport connection doesn't seem beyond what we can do. On reason might be because the application uses the temporary address in a way that taints it. E.g. the address is used in a connection where the user is identified through authentication. That address is now tained from thew perspective of privacy, and should not be used for other connections. There is new work that is aware of that. For example (as I was reviewing it very recently) in draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains: In order to address privacy concerns around linkability of the PvD HTTP connection with future user-initiated connections, if the host has a temporary address per [RFC4941<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4941>] in this PvD, then it SHOULD use a temporary address to fetch the PvD Additional Information and MAY deprecate the used temporary address and generate a new temporary address afterward. I like that from a privacy perspective, even if it is only a MAY, but from the management/ops point of view it’s another address in use. The flip side is there’s no note there mentioning the downside of doing so. Given that we are downgrading 4941 to proposed standard, it might also be worth evaluating the state of 4941 implementations. Are applications clever enough to not reuse tainted addresses? Are they incorrectly exposed by e.g. MP-TCP or ICE implementations? Anyone with data on this? The question is what the benefits are. I don't see a lot of privacy benefits for lots of addresses. Note that a single network port may still end up with losts of addresses: - users may use bridges to extend the network and connect more than one host to a single port - users may run virtual machines (or containers) in bridged mode and end up with multiple virtual hosts by behind a single port - having an IPv6 address per process on a host may have benefits in particular if many processes would like to use the same port for some reason Typically, even very small network switches support many thousand MAC addresses. I think that network devices should support similar numbers of IPv6 addresses per /64. Sure, but when a host incurs a cost in the network, and the network has to have some policy in place to protect itself, there is going to be a limit. I think we need some text in 4941 discussing this, and also give a recommendation for host behaviour. And perhaps also for network configuration. It’s an interesting tradeoff, and different environments will want the slider on that tradeoff at different ends of the scale. But it’s certainly worth capturing. Tim Cheers, Ole -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
- RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses for th… otroan
- RE: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Naveen Kottapalli
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… otroan
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Tim Chown
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Jared Mauch
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Fernando Gont
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Fernando Gont
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Fernando Gont
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… otroan
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Fernando Gont
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Bob Hinden
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Warren Kumari
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Mark Smith
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… David Farmer
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Michael Richardson
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Fernando Gont
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Fernando Gont
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Fernando Gont
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Gyan Mishra
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Philip Homburg
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… otroan
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Tim Chown
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Mark Smith
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Fernando Gont
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Philip Homburg
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Gyan Mishra
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Fernando Gont
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Fernando Gont
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Michael Richardson
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Michael Richardson
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Michael Richardson
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Michael Richardson
- IPv6 address usage (was: Re: RFC4941bis: conseque… Fernando Gont
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Fernando Gont
- Re: IPv6 address usage (was: Re: RFC4941bis: cons… Michael Richardson
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Gyan Mishra
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Mark Smith
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Gyan Mishra
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Gyan Mishra
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Gyan Mishra
- Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequence… Christian Huitema
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Ted Lemon
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Jared Mauch
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Michael Richardson
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Ted Lemon
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Tom Herbert
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Ca By
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Gyan Mishra
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Gyan Mishra
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Tom Herbert
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Warren Kumari
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Jared Mauch
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Gyan Mishra
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Gyan Mishra
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Christian Huitema
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Ole Troan
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Jared Mauch
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Gyan Mishra
- SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of … Jared Mauch
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Gyan Mishra
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (Re: RFC4941bis: consequences… Gyan Mishra
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Ted Lemon
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Jared Mauch
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Michael Richardson
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Tom Herbert
- Re: Address privacy Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Address privacy Tom Herbert
- Re: Address privacy Ole Troan
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (Re: RFC4941bis: consequences… Simon Hobson
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (Re: RFC4941bis: consequences… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Address privacy Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Address privacy Tom Herbert
- Re: Address privacy Nick Hilliard
- RE: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Manfredi (US), Albert E
- Re: Address privacy Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Address privacy Jared Mauch
- Re: Address privacy Gyan Mishra
- Re: Address privacy Gyan Mishra
- RE: Address privacy Manfredi (US), Albert E
- RE: Address privacy Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: Address privacy Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (Re: RFC4941bis: consequences… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (II) Nick Hilliard
- RE: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (II) Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (II) otroan
- Disabling temporary addresses by default? Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Ted Lemon
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Richard Patterson
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Ted Lemon
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (II) Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Gyan Mishra
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Christian Huitema
- Re: Address privacy Fernando Gont
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Ted Lemon
- Re: Address privacy Nick Hilliard
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Nick Hilliard
- Re: Address privacy Gyan Mishra
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (II) Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Tom Herbert
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (II) Michael Richardson
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Fernando Gont
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (II) Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Fernando Gont
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Fred Baker
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Gyan Mishra
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Gyan Mishra
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Mark Smith
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Ted Lemon
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Fernando Gont
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Ole Troan
- Re: Address privacy Tom Herbert
- Re: Address privacy otroan
- Re: Address privacy Ca By
- Re: Address privacy Mark Smith
- Re: Address privacy Tom Herbert
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Gyan Mishra
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Bob Hinden
- Re: Address privacy Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Fernando Gont
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Tom Herbert
- Re: Address privacy Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Fernando Gont
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (Re: RFC4941bis: consequences… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Address privacy Ted Lemon
- Re: Address privacy Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Fernando Gont
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Fernando Gont
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (Re: RFC4941bis: consequences… Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Address privacy Fernando Gont
- Re: IPv6 address usage Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Fernando Gont
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (II) (was:Re: RFC4941bis: con… Ted Lemon
- Re: Address privacy Ted Lemon
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (II) Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Address privacy Fernando Gont
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (II) Fernando Gont
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (Re: RFC4941bis: consequences… Fernando Gont
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (II) Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Address privacy Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Fernando Gont
- SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (II) (was:Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Tom Herbert
- Re: Address privacy Tom Herbert
- Re: Address privacy Ted Lemon
- Re: Address privacy Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Tom Herbert
- Re: Address privacy Sander Steffann
- Re: Address privacy Tom Herbert
- Re: Address privacy Ted Lemon
- Re: Address privacy Tom Herbert
- Re: Address privacy Mark Smith
- Re: Address privacy Tom Herbert
- Re: Address privacy Ted Lemon
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Christian Huitema
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Carsten Bormann
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? otroan
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Tim Chown
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Nick Hilliard
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? otroan
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Jared Mauch
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Nick Hilliard
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? otroan
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? otroan
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Lorenzo Colitti
- RE: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Nick Hilliard
- Re: Address privacy Gyan Mishra
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Tom Herbert
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Christopher Morrow
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? David Farmer
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Tom Herbert
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Michael Richardson
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Michael Richardson
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Gyan Mishra
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Erik Kline
- Re: Address privacy Michael Richardson
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (II) Michael Richardson
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Michael Richardson
- Re: Address privacy Michael Richardson
- Re: Address privacy Ted Lemon
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (II) Fernando Gont
- Better APIs (was: Re: Address privacy) Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Michael Richardson
- Re: Address privacy Ted Lemon
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Michael Richardson
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Michael Richardson
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Michael Richardson
- Re: Address privacy Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Fernando Gont
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy David Farmer
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Fernando Gont
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Fernando Gont
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Michael Richardson
- Re: Better APIs (was: Re: Address privacy) Michael Richardson
- Re: Better APIs Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Better APIs (was: Re: Address privacy) Tommy Pauly
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Gyan Mishra
- Re: Better APIs (was: Re: Address privacy) Erik Kline
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Jared Mauch
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Mark Smith
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Gyan Mishra
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Jared Mauch
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Jared Mauch
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Gyan Mishra
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Jared Mauch
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Michael Richardson
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Erik Kline
- Re: Better APIs (was: Re: Address privacy) Fernando Gont