IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Consensus call on adopting: <draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01>

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Fri, 13 April 2012 21:09 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 19FBA11E80E4 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.569
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.069]
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 Z0XrSryHfZ39 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:09:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from srv01.bbserve.nl (unknown [IPv6:2a02:27f8:1025:18::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E6AE11E80FF for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:09:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 130.41-14-84.ripe.coltfrance.com ([84.14.41.130] helo=[192.168.102.30]) by srv01.bbserve.nl with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from <fgont@si6networks.com>) id 1SInkG-0006Qe-03; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 23:09:29 +0200
Message-ID: <4F881C9A.3050908@si6networks.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:31:22 +0200
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Organization: SI6 Networks
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120313 Thunderbird/3.1.20
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Consensus call on adopting: <draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01>
References: <E7607B61-9889-43A9-B86B-133BD4238BA2@gmail.com> <4F87DF53.7030009@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F87DF53.7030009@cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 6man Chairs <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, IPv6 WG Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
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, 13 Apr 2012 21:09:39 -0000

hI, Eliot,

On 04/13/2012 10:09 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> At one point you write that the intent is to replace EUI-64-based
> addresses (Section 5).  

Exactly.


> But that doesn't seem to jibe with what you
> write in the intro about RFC-4941.  

Could you please cite the "conflicting" text?


> I am concerned that adopting this
> mechanism will make matters worse if this mechanism is being used as an
> alternative to CGAs, as opposed to EUI-64s..

I don't follow. Could you clarify your concern?

Thanks!

Best regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email