IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: ra-privacy: my responses to comments

"Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> Fri, 02 August 2013 00:12 UTC

Return-Path: <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.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 7796F11E8257 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 17:12:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 l3nkYsX-l7L4 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 17:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slb-mbsout-01.boeing.com (slb-mbsout-01.boeing.com [130.76.64.128]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7F2421E83BC for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 16:26:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slb-mbsout-01.boeing.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by slb-mbsout-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id r71NQOIj020554 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 16:26:24 -0700
Received: from XCH-PHX-206.sw.nos.boeing.com (xch-phx-206.sw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.238.17]) by slb-mbsout-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id r71NQM0j020541 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Thu, 1 Aug 2013 16:26:23 -0700
Received: from XCH-BLV-212.nw.nos.boeing.com (137.136.239.115) by XCH-PHX-206.sw.nos.boeing.com (137.136.238.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.328.11; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 16:26:22 -0700
Received: from XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.3.42]) by XCH-BLV-212.nw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.12.44]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.011; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 16:26:22 -0700
From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
To: Scott Brim <swb@internet2.edu>
Subject: RE: ra-privacy: my responses to comments
Thread-Topic: ra-privacy: my responses to comments
Thread-Index: AQHOjrlVqeEWF0tlIkK7jI8o0OnIjZmAzTkAgAAF6ICAAAZPgIAAAioAgAAiwRA=
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 23:26:21 +0000
Message-ID: <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E667164810B4708D6@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <001501ce8ce3$6b6885c0$42399140$@rozanak.com> <2A391D77-60A5-49E4-BF56-47FBE7477AB9@network-heretics.com> <51FA61E8.6040909@internet2.edu> <000601ce8ebd$a3fd9070$ebf8b150$@rozanak.com> <9A40F508-4924-4836-BF4E-80DCF46D3BDE@network-heretics.com> <51FA6DF8.5040404@internet2.edu>
In-Reply-To: <51FA6DF8.5040404@internet2.edu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
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: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 00:12:30 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Scott
> Brim

> "peer" is also a nit - if you
> want an unknown someone to be able to contact you, you need to make
> yourself findable, whether the protocol design is p2p or not.  Otherwise
> you don't.

I also object to the notion that every host or application should be identified by name and not by address. In a peer to peer network, the peers can certainly have the other peers' IP addresses known to them. You don't need a DNS at all, in situations like this.

Matter of fact, I would suggest that the Client Identifier Option of DHCP is precisely for such scenarios. Where the unconfigured peer needs to be given a specific IP address, because that's the only way the other peers can find it.

Bert

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email