Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses

Hello,

I vote for B. I think it makes sense for applications get privacy by
default and applications that need the more persistent addresses will
explicitly ask for one.

Cheers,

Jonne.
-- 
Jonne Soininen
Renesas Mobile

Tel: +358 40 527 4634
E-mail: jonne.soininen@renesasmobile.com

On 3/27/12 10:33 AM, "Brian Haberman" <brian@innovationslab.net> wrote:

>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
>--------------------------------------------------------------------