Re: Meta comment about "3484bis and privacy addresses"

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Tue, 27 March 2012 15:33 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
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 4BFB021E8157 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 08:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 VN50-QdbC4KX for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 08:33:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9561821E814E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 08:33:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach.fuaim.com [206.197.161.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C08D88181 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 08:33:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-5588.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-5588.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.85.136]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 008A2130017 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 08:33:50 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4F71DDDD.7020602@innovationslab.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:33:49 -0400
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120313 Thunderbird/11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Meta comment about "3484bis and privacy addresses"
References: <4F71B938.7030300@si6networks.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F71B938.7030300@si6networks.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 15:33:52 -0000

Fernando,

On 3/27/12 8:57 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I think that one error in which we have incurred at least in the couple
> of years (myself included) is that we focus our discussion on
> "mac-derived addresses vs privacy addresses" when the question should
> really be about "stable addresses vs. temporary addresses".

Given that the question is being driven by the work going into 3484bis, 
I disagree.  The question I asked is querying people's choice for 
preferring temporary (RFC 4941) addresses over public addresses when 
performing address selection.

The discussion of defining a new form of stable address as opposed to 
the current EUI-64-derived addressing is a separate topic.  This is 
especially relevant given the state of 3484bis (ready for WGLC).

Regards,
Brian