Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses for the network
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 25 January 2020 01:30 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 C722B1200D8 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 17:30:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.998 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, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 wPQnI3hg88TR for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 17:30:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42d.google.com (mail-pf1-x42d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C62F12001B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 17:30:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42d.google.com with SMTP id w2so1961177pfd.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 17:30:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5hmUCSzZxvqOh7WxD75ATWkJKvIMj6nXHZAkNkti1bg=; b=NW0EnlkjYrCsPn2il4gZX/YaqVR970qO7EHaGYfXIaDgIU/nfbL6XBT+/dl6IHeOng pfcaJGLgWd+o2l8WhjTUvGoDmr5YnmDxq7SsjzME0GbN7KCQ5ngzDrpSPnxysptkZvF1 hvDymgTABhEPMTFD2hK7KvuR0R2AUruVmn8ULpEtGNwXOop+7+WYMHV6YCqPRtMr4vr0 LdcXa0NegbciTqvkkbXkOQ/26JdlzCe4yionFFe7hlWABBB6NpB2TAZEHtF7qWa/Hp3w 5z1RG7Y6xLs4HEYgtgvc4Y+9pRi7d3oirJRKr8Iw6RshP11tJw+0Umvl53y8wrWgpUV8 h7Uw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=5hmUCSzZxvqOh7WxD75ATWkJKvIMj6nXHZAkNkti1bg=; b=hBUgIWFfDEskThUhlOY7Fhsc5NrIO3OaZMqBzo6NxhcsPMga/WQVrp+j1WZY4bGGrw 85BaY2kKMkEGr5zFZmJ6AzUZEQ5iPGTet5Lf3Tly2A+MhHTJ2I1HxRMBFgLZkeMquTLe T2IgHbMAtxciDJ/54qscuuM2GemQkKDew7pCChanIfzuM97AIWIowsB0nvrtu8VWIJgX 4BNCvamAPduUiuRQelM+uMUr9OcZ4+EeMUV/AP/Fvv3/GjvFFBBJ9tbPBGGTxuzpATDv 1DSs27Y4J2xmisYTz8YvBjZn8eUxgn0Nvg5Ut2zH1VcqTbHlAtQyEr7QWH1k1X98vRX1 nLyQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVF06Xj8pXQ5q6AphFnSkOwwCiL0hHl3WumJ8nqN2XhwQ/i1BrQ tKvQSlpgbcTh4lgn+D0Z9ZaXpW73
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwzUgepv5b479smFMTBjzSf3NQwTG/eSg7GD6d+bQYmIDXYUoXDdQU29gjVBmOvFJ1f/8F2mQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:2949:: with SMTP id p70mr7467693pgp.191.1579915822427; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 17:30:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] (88.161.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.161.88]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n188sm7632353pga.84.2020.01.24.17.30.20 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 24 Jan 2020 17:30:21 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses for the network
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, ipv6@ietf.org
References: <03C832CE-7282-4320-BF1B-4CB7167FE6BE@employees.org> <e936078e-01f9-0254-a8d0-4095455154ac@si6networks.com> <D85412DF-4B03-4790-9E39-968D50ECF86B@employees.org> <m1iuwJV-0000MAC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <B341FF1B-C559-4D54-B117-A58EB6A3C955@employees.org> <dfe3a236-4e61-d2be-929c-869a81994879@si6networks.com> <m1iuxwI-0000M3C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CABNhwV1XcATmrosW_kRTJgrXyTSNqPe=uR4VDt=_eXtt5=H3CQ@mail.gmail.com> <431eefce-594f-b7bd-4d49-a7a7ddbcd684@si6networks.com> <CABNhwV1wA+ntT1SHzzF19VotpXED=MOD2HTbQq2hL_nhaOR3qw@mail.gmail.com> <7c65c99f-1418-eb07-b984-8ad7ff6b7a62@gmail.com> <CABNhwV0jyS+bgKzHeQe9x-3FZvsr_-BiKVm=-G_LGizC7nR=dw@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV0w5tO-4_ixNUWjbAb81vmQvGF_iYmghmqRSuEmVR8Qtw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4ec87367-07b0-d17d-5db1-044da482183a@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2020 14:30:17 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV0w5tO-4_ixNUWjbAb81vmQvGF_iYmghmqRSuEmVR8Qtw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/cjbyDkrps55V2caNwwVhpfD87SU>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 25 Jan 2020 01:30:26 -0000
On 25-Jan-20 12:06, Gyan Mishra wrote: > > Microsoft link - forgot > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 6:05 PM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com <mailto:hayabusagsm@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 5:11 PM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > I agree RFC 7217 stable address is most preferred however Microsoft and Apple don’t support yet. > > > Gyan>On my IPv6 roadmap list with Microsoft. So far no ETA. > > > I have no idea for Apple, but afaik MS switched to pseudorandom stable IIDs per interface a long time ago, before Windows 7 possibly. I haven't seen a modified EUI-64 address on my laptop for a very long time. This is not the same thing as RFC7217 from a privacy point of view, but for network operations and neighbour cache size it seems like the same thing. > > > Gyan> I think it’s EUI-64 and not modified. No. Here's what my Windows 10 says right now (WAN prefix etc obscured manually). There are no EUI-64 or modified EUI-64 interface identifiers. Microsoft Windows [Version 10.0.17763.737] (c) 2018 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. C:\WINDOWS\system32>ipconfig /all Windows IP Configuration Host Name . . . . . . . . . . . . : DESKTOP-xxxx Primary Dns Suffix . . . . . . . : Node Type . . . . . . . . . . . . : Hybrid IP Routing Enabled. . . . . . . . : No WINS Proxy Enabled. . . . . . . . : No DNS Suffix Search List. . . . . . : fritz.box Ethernet adapter Ethernet 4: Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : fritz.box Description . . . . . . . . . . . : ASIX AX88772B USB2.0 to Fast Ethernet Adapter #2 Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : E8-03-9A-3C-67-7A DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : Yes Autoconfiguration Enabled . . . . : Yes IPv6 Address. . . . . . . . . . . : 2406:e002:xxxx:xxxx:80b2:5c79:2266:e431(Preferred) IPv6 Address. . . . . . . . . . . : fd63:45eb:dc14:0:80b2:5c79:2266:e431(Preferred) Temporary IPv6 Address. . . . . . : 2406:e002:xxxx:xxxx:89fa:eda3:4d87:293b(Preferred) Temporary IPv6 Address. . . . . . : fd63:45eb:dc14:0:89fa:eda3:4d87:293b(Preferred) Link-local IPv6 Address . . . . . : fe80::80b2:5c79:2266:e431%7(Preferred) IPv4 Address. . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.178.30(Preferred) Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0 Lease Obtained. . . . . . . . . . : Saturday, 25 January, 2020 14:14:02 Lease Expires . . . . . . . . . . : Tuesday, 4 February, 2020 14:14:02 Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : fe80::be05:43ff:fe8e:ce39%7 192.168.178.1 DHCP Server . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.178.1 DHCPv6 IAID . . . . . . . . . . . : 604000438 DHCPv6 Client DUID. . . . . . . . : 00-01-00-01-24-04-A7-BC-9C-DA-3E-8F-05-7F DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : fd63:45eb:dc14:0:be05:43ff:fe8e:ce39 192.168.178.1 fd63:45eb:dc14:0:be05:43ff:fe8e:ce39 NetBIOS over Tcpip. . . . . . . . : Enabled Wireless LAN adapter Wi-Fi: Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : fritz.box Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Intel(R) Dual Band Wireless-AC 7265 Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 1A-BC-EF-15-F2-27 DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : Yes Autoconfiguration Enabled . . . . : Yes IPv6 Address. . . . . . . . . . . : 2406:e002:xxxx:xxxx:db7:d041:a2d:ce65(Preferred) IPv6 Address. . . . . . . . . . . : fd63:45eb:dc14:0:db7:d041:a2d:ce65(Preferred) Temporary IPv6 Address. . . . . . : 2406:e002:xxxx:xxxx:6029:b755:ced7:343e(Preferred) Temporary IPv6 Address. . . . . . : fd63:45eb:dc14:0:6029:b755:ced7:343e(Preferred) Link-local IPv6 Address . . . . . : fe80::db7:d041:a2d:ce65%23(Preferred) IPv4 Address. . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.178.25(Preferred) Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0 Lease Obtained. . . . . . . . . . : Saturday, 25 January, 2020 14:13:40 Lease Expires . . . . . . . . . . : Tuesday, 4 February, 2020 14:13:38 Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : fe80::be05:43ff:fe8e:ce39%23 192.168.178.1 DHCP Server . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.178.1 DHCPv6 IAID . . . . . . . . . . . : 194828862 DHCPv6 Client DUID. . . . . . . . : 00-01-00-01-24-04-A7-BC-9C-DA-3E-8F-05-7F DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : fd63:45eb:dc14:0:be05:43ff:fe8e:ce39 192.168.178.1 fd63:45eb:dc14:0:be05:43ff:fe8e:ce39 NetBIOS over Tcpip. . . . . . . . : Enabled > > I found this link from Microsoft but it does not state if modified is supported or not. > > > http://download.microsoft.com/download/F/D/F/FDF4CF55-5FDE-4CFF-8539-3662BB5EB7A0/TD13Basel2-43.pptx IPv6 has always used "modified EUI-64". What that 2013 presentation does state is very clear: "Beginning with Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008, a randomized method is utilized to determine the Interface ID instead of EUI-64" (slide 26). In the next line it gives you the magic to revert to modified EUI-64: "netsh int ipv6 set global randomizeidentifiers=enabled|disabled" Regards Brian > > Anyway, I hope we're all agreed that this topic, however interesting is not worth more than a small comment in RFC4941bis. Isn't it actually a v6ops topic ("Operational impact of numerous addresses per host")? > > > Gyan> Agreed > > > > Regards > Brian > > -- > > Gyan Mishra > > Network Engineering & Technology > > Verizon > > Silver Spring, MD 20904 > > Phone: 301 502-1347 > > Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <mailto:gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com> > > > > -- > > Gyan Mishra > > Network Engineering & Technology > > Verizon > > Silver Spring, MD 20904 > > Phone: 301 502-1347 > > Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <mailto:gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com> > > >
- RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses for th… otroan
- RE: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Naveen Kottapalli
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… otroan
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Tim Chown
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Jared Mauch
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Fernando Gont
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Fernando Gont
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Fernando Gont
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… otroan
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Fernando Gont
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Bob Hinden
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Warren Kumari
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Mark Smith
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… David Farmer
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Michael Richardson
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Fernando Gont
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Fernando Gont
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Fernando Gont
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Gyan Mishra
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Philip Homburg
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… otroan
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Tim Chown
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Mark Smith
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Fernando Gont
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Philip Homburg
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Gyan Mishra
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Fernando Gont
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Fernando Gont
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Michael Richardson
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Michael Richardson
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Michael Richardson
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Michael Richardson
- IPv6 address usage (was: Re: RFC4941bis: conseque… Fernando Gont
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Fernando Gont
- Re: IPv6 address usage (was: Re: RFC4941bis: cons… Michael Richardson
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Gyan Mishra
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Mark Smith
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Gyan Mishra
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Gyan Mishra
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Gyan Mishra
- Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequence… Christian Huitema
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Ted Lemon
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Jared Mauch
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Michael Richardson
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Ted Lemon
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Tom Herbert
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Ca By
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Gyan Mishra
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Gyan Mishra
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Tom Herbert
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Warren Kumari
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Jared Mauch
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Gyan Mishra
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Gyan Mishra
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Christian Huitema
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Ole Troan
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Jared Mauch
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Gyan Mishra
- SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of … Jared Mauch
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Gyan Mishra
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (Re: RFC4941bis: consequences… Gyan Mishra
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Ted Lemon
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Jared Mauch
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Michael Richardson
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Tom Herbert
- Re: Address privacy Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Address privacy Tom Herbert
- Re: Address privacy Ole Troan
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (Re: RFC4941bis: consequences… Simon Hobson
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (Re: RFC4941bis: consequences… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Address privacy Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Address privacy Tom Herbert
- Re: Address privacy Nick Hilliard
- RE: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Manfredi (US), Albert E
- Re: Address privacy Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Address privacy Jared Mauch
- Re: Address privacy Gyan Mishra
- Re: Address privacy Gyan Mishra
- RE: Address privacy Manfredi (US), Albert E
- RE: Address privacy Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: Address privacy Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (Re: RFC4941bis: consequences… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (II) Nick Hilliard
- RE: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (II) Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (II) otroan
- Disabling temporary addresses by default? Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Ted Lemon
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Richard Patterson
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Ted Lemon
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (II) Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Gyan Mishra
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Christian Huitema
- Re: Address privacy Fernando Gont
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Ted Lemon
- Re: Address privacy Nick Hilliard
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Nick Hilliard
- Re: Address privacy Gyan Mishra
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (II) Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Tom Herbert
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (II) Michael Richardson
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Fernando Gont
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (II) Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Fernando Gont
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Fred Baker
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Gyan Mishra
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Gyan Mishra
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Mark Smith
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Ted Lemon
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Fernando Gont
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Ole Troan
- Re: Address privacy Tom Herbert
- Re: Address privacy otroan
- Re: Address privacy Ca By
- Re: Address privacy Mark Smith
- Re: Address privacy Tom Herbert
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Gyan Mishra
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Bob Hinden
- Re: Address privacy Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Fernando Gont
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Tom Herbert
- Re: Address privacy Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Fernando Gont
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (Re: RFC4941bis: consequences… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Address privacy Ted Lemon
- Re: Address privacy Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Fernando Gont
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Fernando Gont
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (Re: RFC4941bis: consequences… Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Address privacy Fernando Gont
- Re: IPv6 address usage Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Fernando Gont
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (II) (was:Re: RFC4941bis: con… Ted Lemon
- Re: Address privacy Ted Lemon
- Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses fo… Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (II) Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Address privacy Fernando Gont
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (II) Fernando Gont
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (Re: RFC4941bis: consequences… Fernando Gont
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (II) Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Address privacy Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy (was: Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Fernando Gont
- SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (II) (was:Re: RFC4941bis: consequ… Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Tom Herbert
- Re: Address privacy Tom Herbert
- Re: Address privacy Ted Lemon
- Re: Address privacy Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Tom Herbert
- Re: Address privacy Sander Steffann
- Re: Address privacy Tom Herbert
- Re: Address privacy Ted Lemon
- Re: Address privacy Tom Herbert
- Re: Address privacy Mark Smith
- Re: Address privacy Tom Herbert
- Re: Address privacy Ted Lemon
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Christian Huitema
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Carsten Bormann
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? otroan
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Tim Chown
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Nick Hilliard
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? otroan
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Jared Mauch
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Nick Hilliard
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? otroan
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? otroan
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Lorenzo Colitti
- RE: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Nick Hilliard
- Re: Address privacy Gyan Mishra
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Tom Herbert
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Christopher Morrow
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? David Farmer
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Tom Herbert
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Michael Richardson
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Michael Richardson
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Gyan Mishra
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Erik Kline
- Re: Address privacy Michael Richardson
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (II) Michael Richardson
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Michael Richardson
- Re: Address privacy Michael Richardson
- Re: Address privacy Ted Lemon
- Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (II) Fernando Gont
- Better APIs (was: Re: Address privacy) Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Michael Richardson
- Re: Address privacy Ted Lemon
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Michael Richardson
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Michael Richardson
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Michael Richardson
- Re: Address privacy Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Fernando Gont
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy David Farmer
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Fernando Gont
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Fernando Gont
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Fernando Gont
- Re: Address privacy Michael Richardson
- Re: Better APIs (was: Re: Address privacy) Michael Richardson
- Re: Better APIs Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Better APIs (was: Re: Address privacy) Tommy Pauly
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Gyan Mishra
- Re: Better APIs (was: Re: Address privacy) Erik Kline
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Jared Mauch
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Mark Smith
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Gyan Mishra
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Jared Mauch
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Jared Mauch
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Gyan Mishra
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Jared Mauch
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Michael Richardson
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default? Erik Kline
- Re: Better APIs (was: Re: Address privacy) Fernando Gont