Re: Status of the "u" bit for privacy extensions
Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Tue, 18 February 2014 13:31 UTC
Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 015E51A0667 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 05:31:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eD9Fudw2RSGs for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 05:31:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:d10:2000:e::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C3A31A04C8 for <6man@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 05:31:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [2001:5c0:1400:a::12e3] by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <fgont@si6networks.com>) id 1WFklz-00043G-8c; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 14:31:43 +0100
Message-ID: <53035F12.6090208@si6networks.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:24:34 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Florent Fourcot <ietf@flo.fourcot.fr>, 6man@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Status of the "u" bit for privacy extensions
References: <53032F9D.50203@flo.fourcot.fr>
In-Reply-To: <53032F9D.50203@flo.fourcot.fr>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/nIsckYQZx1YUwmJ1ehANAkBgHBI
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 18 Feb 2014 13:31:55 -0000
Hi, Florent, On 02/18/2014 07:02 AM, Florent Fourcot wrote: > > the RFC 7136 has removed/clarify the significance of bits in interface > identifier for future iids generation, but it does not include any > reference to some current iids generation. > > For example, the RFC 4941 asks to set the bit 6 to zero: > http://tools.ietf.org/search/rfc4941#section-3.2.1 > > Should current implementations following this rule to be updated? What is > the current rule for this? Strictly speaking, I'd say that, since RFC4941 has not been updated in this respect, if you comply with RFC4941, you should use the old semantics. That said, in the light of RFC7136, it would probably make sense to use the semantics in RFC7136. -- that's what we did in draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses, for instance. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
- Re: Status of the "u" bit for privacy extensions Florent Fourcot
- Re: Status of the "u" bit for privacy extensions Brian E Carpenter
- Status of the "u" bit for privacy extensions Florent Fourcot
- Re: Status of the "u" bit for privacy extensions Fernando Gont
- Status of the "u" bit for privacy extensions Florent Fourcot
- Re: Status of the "u" bit for privacy extensions Fernando Gont