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

Tim Chown <> Fri, 13 April 2012 10:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B59721F8627 for <>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 03:37:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kMXFBnaJyikQ for <>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 03:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7400C21F8624 for <>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 03:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3DAbjws022172; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:37:45 +0100
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 q3DAbjws022172
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple;; s=200903; t=1334313465; bh=AEZZPIixvFyd5T/fMBOfnxl0Qw8=; h=Subject:Mime-Version:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=uANqzG1FJkqvMA3VKUGZ+tRG6Zju3OH0cZXJm5amUAJfkXboYwgIBRTLQBCvLtQGy b+fzHKlTYn5DKgo2TSwyWvQG5+KDqdP9Il+DCqANz5/ajyMgZ+Dw2reFUeOIHRgIHj J8cKkMC5cXaecPeAKZf+Kh/cs34F+LL10ovGox0A=
Received: from ( [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by ( [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from <> with ESMTP id o3CBbj0543760396p0 ret-id none; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:37:45 +0100
Received: from ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3DAbdrZ019129 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:37:39 +0100
Subject: Re: Consensus call on adopting: <draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Tim Chown <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:37:39 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EMEW3|09206087d5a8f81e80ca891498271ae5o3CBbj03tjc||>
References: <> <> <>
To: IPv6 WG Mailing List <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=o3CBbj054376039600; tid=o3CBbj0543760396p0; client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=2:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: q3DAbjws022172
Cc: 6man Chairs <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:37:50 -0000

On 13 Apr 2012, at 08:14, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> On 2012-04-12 22:28, Bob Hinden wrote:
>> All,
>> This is a consensus call on adopting:
>>    Title     : A method for Generating Stable Privacy-Enhanced Addresses with
>>                IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)
>>    Author(s) : Fernando Gont
>>    Filename  : draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01
>>    Pages     : 15
>>    Date      : 2012-12-31
>> as a 6MAN working group document.  Please state your opinion, positive
>> or negative, on the mailing list or to the chairs.  This consensus call
>> will end on April 26, 2012.
> Yes to adoption. Karl Auer's points all need discussion, and I think
> we also need to consider the impact on 3484bis.

Yes, let's adopt.

Personally I think a different name for these types of addresses would be more appropriate, to avoid confusion with RFC4941 Privacy Extensions.  If I understand it correctly, essentially what you are defining is randomised stable-per-prefix public interface identifiers, but that's not a catchy term :)

On 3484bis, if stable privacy addresses are alternative public (not temporary) identifiers for hosts then is there anything more to say?  What impact are you considering Brian, other than would exist if two other public addresses existed on an interface?

Note that RFC4941 temporary addresses can also be stable, in that they do not change if the host stays on the same network; the specification only says identifiers SHOULD be regenerated at some defined interval.  

Finally, it would be interesting to know what algorithm Windows uses to generate its identifiers; they are randomised, public and stable.  I had thought they were based on the prefix, but Fernando's tests suggest not.