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

2011/3/9 Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>

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

(1)If "H" ("Hardware-derived addresses") flag is 1, it indicates that
the host SHOULD generate hardware-derived addresses, and doesn't
generate privacy addresses.
(2)If "H" ("Hardware-derived addresses") flag is 0, the author say that
this bit indicates that Privacy Extensions SHOULD be enabled
when configuring IPv6 addresses as a result of Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration,
*but many people will think that it indicates that the host doesn't
generate *
*hardware-derived addresses, and SHOULD generate privacy addresses. It may *
*result in a misunderstanding.*
*I think "DisablePrivacy" proposed by "draft-yhb-6man-ra-privacy-flag-01"*
*is better than "H",although some people don't like the problem to be
solved.*
*
*
*Yu Hua bing*