RE: (no subject)
"Christian Huitema" <huitema@windows.microsoft.com> Wed, 04 January 2006 08:18 UTC
Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Eu3qz-0005av-Ex; Wed, 04 Jan 2006 03:18:41 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Eu3qv-0005YE-91 for ipv6@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2006 03:18:37 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA25252 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Jan 2006 03:17:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail2.microsoft.com ([131.107.3.124]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Eu3wM-0005RB-MG for ipv6@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2006 03:24:15 -0500
Received: from mailout1.microsoft.com ([157.54.1.117]) by mail2.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Wed, 4 Jan 2006 00:18:26 -0800
Received: from red-hub-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.7.71]) by mailout1.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 4 Jan 2006 00:18:25 -0800
Received: from win-imc-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.0.39]) by red-hub-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 4 Jan 2006 00:18:25 -0800
Received: from WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.12.88]) by win-imc-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 4 Jan 2006 00:18:25 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 00:19:43 -0800
Message-ID: <DAC3FCB50E31C54987CD10797DA511BA12ABC66D@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Thread-Topic: (no subject)
thread-index: AcYQ5czp/BTAcsJdSuicMux47hjqHgAIXeuQ
From: Christian Huitema <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>
To: timbeck04@verizon.net, jspence@native6.com
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jan 2006 08:18:25.0350 (UTC) FILETIME=[6F20C660:01C61107]
X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: f66b12316365a3fe519e75911daf28a8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: (no subject)
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IP Version 6 Working Group \(ipv6\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
Hosts are not supposed to make any distinction between ULA and global scope addresses. Hosts autoconfigure ULA addresses if the RA advertises and ULA prefix. Thus, hosts that are programmed to generate RFC 3041 addresses for global scope addresses will do the same for ULA. > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > timbeck04@verizon.net > Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 8:14 PM > To: jspence@native6.com > Cc: ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: (no subject) > > Hi John, please see my comments in-line: > > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > John > Spence > Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 12:23 PM > To: ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: Are privacy extensions, RFC 3041,defined for non global-scope > addresses? > > > I re-read the document, and it certainly focuses on the privacy > needs of global-scope addresses. I did not find a place where it > said it was not defined for ULA or link-local scope addresses. > > -> AFAICS, RFC 3041 deals only with global-scope addresses. The stated > goals (2-4) explicitly refer to global-scope addresses. > > Is that the intent - not defined for non global-scope addresses? > Or I am reading that into it? > > -> I think it's reasonable to conclude the mechanism defined in RFC 3041 > is not defined for non global-scope addressses. ULAs to my knowledge > didn't exist at the time 3041 was written (RFC 3041 in January 2001, RFC > 4193 not until October 2005). Even though there is an extant draft meant > to update 3041 [draft-ietf-ipv6-privacy-addrs-v2-04.txt], it has yet to > become an RFC itself. > > -> If by some stretch RFC 3041 was meant for link-local scope addresses, > it seems that would be suboptimal. At least as often as the temp link- > local unicast address changed, the node would have to (un)subscribe to the > corresponding solicited-node multicast group(s). That could lead to > reduced performance. I'd also wonder about the affect temporary link-local > addresses would have on a router's neighbor cache, and/or any connectivity > dependent upon the accuracy of cache entries... How might this affect ND > itself (not a leading question BTW)? > > Thanks. > > -> Best regards, > > Tim Enos > 1Sam16:7 > > ---------------------------------------------------- > John Spence, CCSI, CCNA, CISSP > Native6, Inc. > IPv6 Training and Consulting > jspence@native6.com > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
- Re: (no subject) Tim Osburn
- (no subject) FIGEN CETIN
- (no subject) B.Svante Eriksson
- (no subject) masuda yuko
- (no subject) masuda yuko
- (no subject) timbeck04
- RE: (no subject) Christian Huitema
- (no subject) timbeck04
- RE: Are privacy extensions, RFC 3041, defined for… John Spence
- RE: Are privacy extensions, RFC 3041,defined for … timothy enos
- (no subject) judith minkin
- (no subject) Anjali Gajendragadkar
- (no subject) Ignatios Souvatzis
- Re: What's 16 bits between friends? Brian Dickson
- Re: What's 16 bits between friends? Ignatios Souvatzis
- RE: What's 16 bits between friends? michael.dillon
- Re: What's 16 bits between friends? Brian Dickson
- Re: What's 16 bits between friends? Brian Dickson
- Re: What's 16 bits between friends? Mark Smith
- RE: What's 16 bits between friends? michael.dillon
- RE: What's 16 bits between friends? Templin, Fred L