Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses

Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi@niif.hu> Tue, 27 March 2012 08:17 UTC

Return-Path: <mohacsi@niif.hu>
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 17D4621F8542 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 01:17:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.572
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.576, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_HU=1.35, HOST_EQ_HU=1.245]
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 VCWlDchpiNwt for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 01:17:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.ki.iif.hu (mail.ki.iif.hu [IPv6:2001:738:0:411::241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A334B21F8551 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 01:17:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bolha.lvs.iif.hu (bolha.lvs.iif.hu [193.225.14.181]) by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7513A8794A; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:17:30 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at bolha.lvs.iif.hu
Received: from mail.ki.iif.hu ([IPv6:::ffff:193.6.222.241]) by bolha.lvs.iif.hu (bolha.lvs.iif.hu [::ffff:193.225.14.72]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id amfoui7DCNiD; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:17:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix, from userid 9002) id 4995887A84; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:17:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 483E887A81; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:17:24 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:17:24 +0200
From: Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi@niif.hu>
X-X-Sender: mohacsi@mignon.ki.iif.hu
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
Subject: Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses
In-Reply-To: <4F716D5C.40402@innovationslab.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1203271011500.40024@mignon.ki.iif.hu>
References: <4F716D5C.40402@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
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 08:17:36 -0000

Dear All,
 	option B prefered with RFC 4941 section 3.6 properly implemented 
as:
"   Devices implementing this specification MUST provide a way for the
    end user to explicitly enable or disable the use of temporary
    addresses.
....
  Additionally, sites might wish to selectively enable or disable the
    use of temporary addresses for some prefixes.
....
    implementations SHOULD provide a way to enable and disable generation
    of temporary addresses for specific prefix subranges.  This per-
    prefix setting SHOULD override the global settings on the node with
    respect to the specified prefix subranges.  Note that the pre-prefix
    setting can be applied at any granularity, and not necessarily on a
    per-subnet basis.
"

Regards,


Janos Mohacsi
Head of HBONE+ project
Network Engineer, Deputy Director Network and Multimedia
NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY
Co-chair of Hungarian IPv6 Forum
Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F  4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012, Brian Haberman 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
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>