IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses

Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr> Tue, 27 March 2012 08:15 UTC

Return-Path: <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
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 DC5FD21F883B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 01:15:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.543
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.543 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.056, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 VQLKczVuAgRN for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 01:15:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B03421F883A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 01:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q2R8F1Rf003030; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:15:01 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr)
Message-Id: <201203270815.q2R8F1Rf003030@givry.fdupont.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
Subject: Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses
In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 27 Mar 2012 03:33:48 EDT. <4F716D5C.40402@innovationslab.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:15:01 +0200
Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
Cc: 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 08:15:05 -0000

 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

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status