Re: Status of the "u" bit for privacy extensions
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 18 February 2014 21:22 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 D04231A026A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 13:22:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 dhu-X7WKYPZM for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 13:22:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pb0-x235.google.com (mail-pb0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE7331A0239 for <6man@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 13:22:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pb0-f53.google.com with SMTP id md12so17244459pbc.40 for <6man@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 13:22:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=H1J5xqE1GYCXYkupZczg0Inx7Tvujq52ZbNWAZRsBwg=; b=hqo+DBGAjYyph0y1q5sE/gwYhvd5oMQLwEM6I9mzh1TbHchLTQZRJUQJa3/NvfX97Z ZGRIuOQsVItf5Y4NydK9H+DqqQVPYh45pxPAkR/3gZbWWF5fraM73NzFnRmbfuobsriC bxOmH2b9MRogt3yPv+GjSWMp94bXnCUxK15ROv//qQEyPP40bKWjRHlp6VZ8rALbLwr6 vO0AquCmehQMDFUwHmmQl2UqqcTGzYJIWQY+oBvA7iAvz3wt7L+NFR9RDViRFjEKcuUF JFs/BHCstwxzW05sIURz3SwkghUS8+NDPni5ZdOJWXgi5ljaHK2UsLh6SbgUMeI0RyuO razg==
X-Received: by 10.67.5.7 with SMTP id ci7mr35101928pad.99.1392758545119; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 13:22:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [130.216.38.108] (sc-cs-567-laptop.cs.auckland.ac.nz. [130.216.38.108]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id rb6sm59098223pbb.41.2014.02.18.13.22.22 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 18 Feb 2014 13:22:24 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5303CF15.5030701@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:22:29 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Florent Fourcot <ietf@flo.fourcot.fr>
Subject: Re: Status of the "u" bit for privacy extensions
References: <53032F9D.50203@flo.fourcot.fr> <53035F12.6090208@si6networks.com> <5303AF2E.3090701@flo.fourcot.fr>
In-Reply-To: <5303AF2E.3090701@flo.fourcot.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/cRVDh9B18wHmjaggvd0KurXK2pQ
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, 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 21:22:32 -0000
On 19/02/2014 08:06, Florent Fourcot wrote:
>>> 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.
I don't see a problem. We tried to be careful in RFC7136 not to break
or even theoretically invalidate any current code. The document that
would ask for a change is draft-ietf-6man-default-iids, if approved.
But even so, it would not break any running code.
(Personal comment: breaking running code would be a really silly
thing for the IETF to do at this stage in the life of IPv6.)
Brian
- 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