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 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Jong-Hyouk Lee
- 3484bis and privacy addresses Brian Haberman
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Arifumi Matsumoto
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Tassos Chatzithomaoglou
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Teemu Savolainen
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Francis Dupont
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Mohacsi Janos
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Tim Chown
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Roland Bless
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Samita Chakrabarti
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Simon Perreault
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Alex Abrahams
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Tina TSOU
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Wuyts Carl
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Karl Auer
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Karl Auer
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Fernando Gont
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Francis Dupont
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Fernando Gont
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Brian Haberman
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Fernando Gont
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Ray Hunter
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Fernando Gont
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Ray Hunter
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Sander Steffann
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Dominik Elsbroek
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Karl Auer
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses STARK, BARBARA H
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Karl Auer
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Roger Jørgensen
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Francis Dupont
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses jonne.soininen
- Re: Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Ray Hunter
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Doug Barton
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses t.petch
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Alex Abrahams
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Doug Barton
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Mark Andrews
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Fernando Gont
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Dave Thaler
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Ray Hunter
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses james woodyatt
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Ray Hunter
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Dave Thaler
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Brian E Carpenter
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Dave Thaler
- Re: RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Ray Hunter
- RE: RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Dave Thaler
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Ray Hunter
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Dave Thaler
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Ray Hunter
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Dave Thaler
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Dave Thaler
- Re: RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Ray Hunter
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Arifumi Matsumoto