Re: draft-gont-6man-managing-privacy-extensions-00.txt

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:49:29 +1300
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2011-03-10 00:17, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, Ran Atkinson wrote:
> > 
> >>
> >> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gont-6man-managing-privacy-extensions-00.txt>
> >>
> >>
> >> I recommend that folks read the above draft.  I haven't seen the
> >> I-D announcement get cross-posted to the IPv6 WG, perhaps due to
> >> the volume of recent I-D postings, and the topic seems relevant.
> > 
> > I don't think it solves what it thinks it solves, but if this REALLY
> > should be implemented, it's my initial thinking that the H flag should
> > be a MUST demand to only have ONE and only one MAC-based IPv6 address
> > according to EUI64. I would appreciate some reasoning in the draft why
> > this was chosen as a SHOULD option.
> 
> For the reason I just gave against the disable-private flag: this
> violates the host's right to use an untraceable address.
> 
> It may be that in corporate deployments, that right can be removed.
> But removing it for public subscribers would be a political blunder.
> 

I agree. I sort of accept that an ISP can know my addresses in use, in
part because they gave them to me. However, for an ISP to not let me
choose if I want to use privacy addresses on the Internet would
be completely unacceptable.

Regards,
Mark.

>     Brian
> 
> > 
> > I do not like the "disable Privacy"-flag thinking at all and I really
> > oppose going with that solution.
> > 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------