IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses

"Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> Tue, 27 March 2012 19:08 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 462ED21E80D8 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 12:08:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.266
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.266 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.667, 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 UcJyU+jr3Htz for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 12:08:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com (slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com [130.76.64.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 490B321E8094 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 12:08:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (blv-av-01.boeing.com [130.247.48.231]) by slb-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/8.14.4/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id q2RJ7uVL020507 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 27 Mar 2012 12:07:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id q2RJ7uAK016716; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 12:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from XCH-MWHT-06.mw.nos.boeing.com (xch-mwht-06.mw.nos.boeing.com [134.57.113.166]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id q2RJ7u2u016646 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK); Tue, 27 Mar 2012 12:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from XCH-MWPFX-01.mw.nos.boeing.com (132.173.24.10) by XCH-MWHT-06.mw.nos.boeing.com (134.57.113.166) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:07:55 -0500
Received: from XCH-MW-08V.mw.nos.boeing.com ([134.57.119.191]) by XCH-MWPFX-01.mw.nos.boeing.com ([132.173.24.10]) with mapi; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:07:54 -0500
From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
To: Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:07:51 -0500
Subject: RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses
Thread-Topic: 3484bis and privacy addresses
Thread-Index: Ac0MBi53mq2w+zd5Qse3WqZhALzzagARlHvw
Message-ID: <B0147C3DD45E42478038FC347CCB65FE02BB4DCBFC@XCH-MW-08V.mw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <4F716D5C.40402@innovationslab.net> <1332844849.2641.800.camel@karl>
In-Reply-To: <1332844849.2641.800.camel@karl>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.0.0.1412-6.800.1017-18800.007
x-tm-as-result: No--47.117100-0.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: Yes
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 19:08:08 -0000

> From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Karl Auer


> >       Please state your preference for one of the following default
> > options :
> >
> > A. Prefer public addresses over privacy addresses
> >
> > B. Prefer privacy addresses over public addresses
> 
> B.
> 
> While I realise that the Argument From Personal Ignorance is not very
> convincing, I am having a very hard time imagining why anyone would
> turn
> on privacy addresses, then prefer non-privacy addresses...

+1.

I am generally in favor of using public addresses always, but I have to agree with Karl's point. Maybe this logic should be stated explicitly in a 3484bis.

Bert

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email