Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses

I would like to see B; which would reflect common practice in the -bis RFC, but allow the default to be changed.

Nothing precludes a host using privacy addresses also having a static/DNS registered address it's reachable by, but as Tassos says that's not the topic for the vote.

Tim

On 27 Mar 2012, at 09:09, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou wrote:

> Maybe i have misunderstood something, but how does DNS interfere with source address selection?
> 
> I would go with option A.
> I would even prefer to limit even more the usage of temporary addresses, but that's another talk.
> 
> --
> Tassos
> 
> 
> On 27/3/2012 9:41 πμ, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> Hi Brian,
>> 
>> I think by default privacy addresses (option B) should be selected.
>> 
>> It is up to applications that require "stable" addresses to force the
>> other way around, and a quick guess is that this kind of applications
>> already do it by means of selecting a DNS name that should typically have
>> already a global stable address.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Jordi
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Mensaje original-----
>> De: Brian Haberman<brian@innovationslab.net>
>> Responder a:<brian@innovationslab.net>
>> Fecha: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 03:33:48 -0400
>> Para:<ipv6@ietf.org>
>> Asunto: 3484bis and privacy addresses
>> 
>>> All,
>>>      The chairs would like to get a sense of the working group on
>>> changing the current (defined 3484) model of preferring public addresses
>>> over privacy addresses during the address selection process.  RFC 3484
>>> prefers public addresses with the ability (MAY) of an implementation to
>>> reverse the preference.  The suggestion has been made to reverse that
>>> preference in 3484bis (prefer privacy addresses over public ones).
>>> Regardless, the document will allow implementers/users to reverse the
>>> default preference.
>>> 
>>>      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
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Brian, Bob,&  Ole
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>> ipv6@ietf.org
>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> 
>> **********************************************
>> IPv4 is over
>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>> http://www.consulintel.es
>> The IPv6 Company
>> 
>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------