IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-gont-6man-managing-privacy-extensions-00.txt

sthaug@nethelp.no Wed, 16 March 2011 07:33 UTC

Return-Path: <sthaug@nethelp.no>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D930E3A6822 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 00:33:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.312
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.312 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.288, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YqUhcKqIn2bL for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 00:33:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [195.1.209.33]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6C62E3A6820 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 00:33:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 14514 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2011 07:34:47 -0000
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (HELO localhost) (195.1.209.33) by bizet.nethelp.no with SMTP; 16 Mar 2011 07:34:47 -0000
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 08:34:47 +0100
Message-Id: <20110316.083447.74736630.sthaug@nethelp.no>
To: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
Subject: Re: draft-gont-6man-managing-privacy-extensions-00.txt
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <4D7FE55B.7050207@gmail.com>
References: <20110310071925.309d467b@opy.nosense.org> <4D7F539E.7030308@gont.com.ar> <4D7FE55B.7050207@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org, ran.atkinson@gmail.com
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 07:33:27 -0000

> > Why would you find it acceptable to have the ISP assign you the complete
> > address e.g. with DHCP, then?
> 
> In the context of a user requiring privacy protection, it isn't acceptable.
> As far as I know, what the ISP will assign is a prefix; the individual
> host addresses are locally assigned by the CPE.

Or the host could be connected to a bridge, and assigned a /128 using
DHCPv6 IA_NA (RFC 3315).

As an ISP: I would *prefer* to require each customer to have a router,
and assign a /56 using DHCPv6 IA_PD. However, the reality is that many
customers today are using a PC behind a bridge, and such customers
would then be assigned a /128.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email