Re: Status of the "u" bit for privacy extensions
Florent Fourcot <ietf@flo.fourcot.fr> Tue, 18 February 2014 19:06 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@flo.fourcot.fr>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AAFA1A03ED for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:06:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ewZctNJ7f6bm for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:06:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from olfflo.fourcot.fr (fourcot.fr [IPv6:2001:4b98:dc0:41:216:3eff:fe52:be3b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3442A1A0167 for <6man@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:06:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from reglisse.fourcot.fr (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:51a3:666::1]) (Authenticated sender: reglisse) by olfflo.fourcot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 14D962DF2B; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 20:06:24 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by reglisse.fourcot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBF8F80BC9A; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 20:06:22 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <5303AF2E.3090701@flo.fourcot.fr>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 20:06:22 +0100
From: Florent Fourcot <ietf@flo.fourcot.fr>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20131103 Icedove/17.0.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Subject: Re: Status of the "u" bit for privacy extensions
References: <53032F9D.50203@flo.fourcot.fr> <53035F12.6090208@si6networks.com>
In-Reply-To: <53035F12.6090208@si6networks.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/VcCodgnDAAtNc-Jlequr4BhUKkE
Cc: 6man@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 18 Feb 2014 19:06:30 -0000
>> Should current implementations following this rule to be updated? What is >> the current rule for this? > > Strictly speaking, I'd say that, since RFC4941 has not been updated in > this respect, if you comply with RFC4941, you should use the old semantics. > > That said, in the light of RFC7136, it would probably make sense to use > the semantics in RFC7136. > Thanks Fernando. I'm afraid, it will probably not enough convincing for Linux kernel developers to change the current behaviour. Regards, -- Florent.
- Re: Status of the "u" bit for privacy extensions Florent Fourcot
- Re: Status of the "u" bit for privacy extensions Brian E Carpenter
- Status of the "u" bit for privacy extensions Florent Fourcot
- Re: Status of the "u" bit for privacy extensions Fernando Gont
- Status of the "u" bit for privacy extensions Florent Fourcot
- Re: Status of the "u" bit for privacy extensions Fernando Gont