3484bis and privacy addresses

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Tue, 27 March 2012 07:33 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
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 6A07721F8483 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:33:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 SZKNgOatwD5C for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:33:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B458A21F8702 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:33:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach.fuaim.com [206.197.161.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B3548816D for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:33:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-5588.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-5588.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.85.136]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B3CF130017 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:33:49 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4F716D5C.40402@innovationslab.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 03:33:48 -0400
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120313 Thunderbird/11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: 3484bis and privacy addresses
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 07:33:51 -0000

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