Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 03/27/2012 07:00 PM, Ray Hunter wrote:
> My take on this is that a set of a few hundred individual persons who
> are worried about privacy are more likely to be able to control their
> own particular machines to correctly override the "default off" setting
> than a single corporate network manager is to be able to guarantee
> overriding a "default on" setting on 100% of 10000 machines attached to
> their network.

Well, that's because we should probably do something like this:
<http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-gont-6man-managing-slaac-policy-00.txt>

While I understand the "procedural constraints" (i.e., document in
WGLC), I think that much of the discussion that we're having is because
we have limited choices in a number of areas. Namely:

1) Inability to convey address-generation policy in RA messages.
2) Stable privacy-enhanced addresses

So we worry about selecting the right default because:

1) We have no mechanism to change that default dynamically
2) If we were to use stable addresses, in msot cases that implies
"privacy-harmful" addresses.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492