IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Consensus call on adopting: <draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01>

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Fri, 20 April 2012 18:36 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
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 59AA111E8086 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:36:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 jmNV3SonlnQ6 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:36:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from srv01.bbserve.nl (unknown [IPv6:2a02:27f8:1025:18::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB40B11E8079 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:36:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [2001:5c0:1000:a::5eb] by srv01.bbserve.nl with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from <fgont@si6networks.com>) id 1SLIhG-0005t4-5j; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 20:36:42 +0200
Message-ID: <4F91ACB3.2030901@si6networks.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 15:36:35 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Organization: SI6 Networks
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120313 Thunderbird/3.1.20
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi@niif.hu>
Subject: Re: Consensus call on adopting: <draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01>
References: <E7607B61-9889-43A9-B86B-133BD4238BA2@gmail.com> <4F87DF53.7030009@cisco.com> <4F881C9A.3050908@si6networks.com> <4F8E8B75.4030605@cisco.com> <4F8EE130.8070903@si6networks.com> <4F901471.3070802@cisco.com> <4F9072E5.7060906@si6networks.com> <CAAVMDnXLoKFsHYvav+Yd8puo9ePEcPvKSZYsyv9=GzRcODHopw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1204201400580.40024@mignon.ki.iif.hu>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1204201400580.40024@mignon.ki.iif.hu>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 6man Chairs <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, IPv6 WG Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
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: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 18:36:52 -0000

Hi, Mohacsi,

On 04/20/2012 10:09 AM, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
>     I support to have a semi stable private address. But very much
> against the idea of replacing EUI-64 addresses.

You mean "against replacing addresses embedding IEEE identifiers"?


> The client application
> based on the policy should pick pivate or EUI-64 addresses.

Just curious: Is there a specific use case for IEEE-derived addresses
that cannot be satisfied with draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses?


> Note: - Nothing stops me to pick MAC addresses from no longer existing
> vendor e.g DEC

Why would you want to do it?


> I think the proper implementation of RFC 3041 or/and 4941 can solve your
> problem

I don't follow. RFC 4941 generates addresses in addition to the stable
ones, so.. how could they possibly fix the scanning problem?

Thanks!

Best regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email