Re: I-D Action: draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00.txt

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 10/25/2013 01:51 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>
> Not only operationally it may prove difficult to upgrade everything from
> RFC2464, but all the IPv6-over-foo specs of future deployment may need
> to accept it as well.

Huh?

Can you elaborate how this affects deployment?

Are you suggesting that we ignore well-known problems?

Are you suggesting that we stick to a feature that allows simple
location tracking?

Or.. maybe you're fine with people deploying IPv6 NAT and that kind of
middle-box to mitigate this sort of thing?

An old-timer (who preferred to remain anonymous) just sent me this off-list:

"You know, the reaction to this personifies what is wrong with the IETF.

Here is a practice that we have known was a bad idea for 30 years and a)
they made the mistake anyway, and b) they won't fix it. "




> and why not the methods of forming IPv6 addresses containing an IPv4
> address which may be related in other ways to other privacy aspects like
> geographical localization.)

Those methods:

* Do not result from SLAAC (hence they are out of the scope of this
document), and/or,

* Are employed by automatic tunneling and have no alternative.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492