IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Tue, 27 March 2012 07:41 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=1433caa07d=jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
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 59DFF21F87A1 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:41:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 kwKz-IOE-ISp for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from consulintel.es (mail.consulintel.es [213.172.48.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B19C421F879F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:41:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=consulintel.es; s=MDaemon; t=1332833932; x=1333438732; q=dns/txt; h=DomainKey-Signature: Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic: In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding: Reply-To; bh=/0OBYj4eygpJokKIDtdMOjpOSA2ECkp6mX1QGtlKgac=; b=Bg+ 9JWxMLaXQ8uDKt74OZnWGqv4p7mvYLgIdMFp0oxoIv31uQUPe5ITvX9/0xE01T1c oiN0lI77uufiEzfdbanVuV4nay3WZWZWI2Y8zwft+u/X+EVROmZnRpTCxtsddNet XoyEg7aLmLkppMDIVy5sSt2BUvzexk5KmcG2Q3oY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=MDaemon; d=consulintel.es; c=simple; q=dns; h=from:message-id; b=D/MqnHwfGd/3NzpQVafjUjEma4SqcccN3/3ImEFCVGA66g6LpQ8n/+aMBR2E DJCFviA74NdHGvGC2tcldbsO5b50pY2LpLUq9f8f6ghEUb3K4+RWdZifJ NbW/s4BQIOK/l1yy5vUwRRZ3Pp6ukwBorDe/eS0uNapIQ/WpseI8oY=;
X-MDAV-Processed: consulintel.es, Tue, 27 Mar 2012 09:38:52 +0200
Received: from [130.129.81.5] by consulintel.es (MDaemon PRO v11.0.3) with ESMTP id md50004132522.msg for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 09:38:52 +0200
X-Spam-Processed: consulintel.es, Tue, 27 Mar 2012 09:38:52 +0200 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source)
X-MDPtrLookup-Result: pass dns.ptr=dhcp-5105.meeting.ietf.org (ip=130.129.81.5) (consulintel.es)
X-Authenticated-Sender: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-HashCash: 1:20:120327:md50004132522::xaoUmskn1EtPNtzd:00003lec
X-MDRemoteIP: 130.129.81.5
X-Return-Path: prvs=1433caa07d=jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-Envelope-From: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: ipv6@ietf.org
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 09:41:37 +0200
Subject: Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Message-ID: <CB973B4E.6BB7A%jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
Thread-Topic: 3484bis and privacy addresses
In-Reply-To: <4F716D5C.40402@innovationslab.net>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
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 07:41:49 -0000

Hi Brian,

I think by default privacy addresses (option B) should be selected.

It is up to applications that require "stable" addresses to force the
other way around, and a quick guess is that this kind of applications
already do it by means of selecting a DNS name that should typically have
already a global stable address.

Regards,
Jordi






-----Mensaje original-----
De: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
Responder a: <brian@innovationslab.net>
Fecha: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 03:33:48 -0400
Para: <ipv6@ietf.org>
Asunto: 3484bis and privacy addresses

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



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email