IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Why /64

Octavio Alvarez <alvarezp@alvarezp.ods.org> Mon, 28 October 2013 16:47 UTC

Return-Path: <alvarezp@alvarezp.ods.org>
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 B0F9F11E814C for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:47:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 6jMRjuxxAomf for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:47:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sobre.alvarezp.com (sobre.alvarezp.com [IPv6:2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fe96:8fec]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EEB121E80AB for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:47:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.251] (189.220.45.207.cable.dyn.cableonline.com.mx [189.220.45.207]) by sobre.alvarezp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8D9E8613D; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:47:00 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <526E9517.1090207@alvarezp.ods.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:47:19 -0700
From: Octavio Alvarez <alvarezp@alvarezp.ods.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130821 Icedove/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@massar.ch>
Subject: Re: Why /64
References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <E0F0D3DE-D31B-4CC2-9384-DFEBCCB8F557@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|9f43bef2fe7433173858819bd0eeee2dp9OKUJ03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|E0F0D3DE-D31B-4CC2-9384-DFEBCCB8F557@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <CAKD1Yr0q2dY041CMarFfTZZx6=qHC-eJ+74qgiHP-dt7+ga7yg@mail.gmail.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <CAKD1Yr0_anudWNpWRkvMGvD_pvyEscnuqEsPUy4YNm3e9Hue9g@mail.gmail.com> <CAPv4CP9k_J2GCOFhTCBz3U-nQmCWSjc4nceexaWwYZ-nDMpJmw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKFn1SG1PC_kA-pO5Or8VyeaOzvLfpmQe0LiiYkXU_HzNqGzCQ@mail.gmail.com> <526E250E.5050607@massar.ch>
In-Reply-To: <526E250E.5050607@massar.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "<ipv6@ietf.org>" <ipv6@ietf.org>
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: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 16:47:16 -0000

On 10/28/2013 01:49 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> On 2013-10-27 15:50, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
> [..]
>> Privacy isn't just one single thing. That the user might lose privacy
>> elsewhere in the entire stack that make up Internet, that's NOT an
>> argument to give up /64 because we have lost privacy anyhow.
> 
> I am NOT arguing that a /64 should go the way of the dodo.
> I am only stating that this "IPv6 Privacy Address" thing is a myth.

Which is also inaccurate, as the purpose is not to provide privacy, but
just to prevent anti-privacy through the IPv6 address.

It's difficult to choose the right words for this.

v2.35.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status