Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses

[Ray Hunter <[e-mail]>]

I happen to like your draft. But even in the presence of a mechanism to 
distribute an advisory address-generation policy (which may or may not 
not be supported by all end-node implementations for another 10 years) 
IMHO the proper *default* behavior is still "off" = option A. In other 
words, default = IPv4-like behavior, at least until we really figure out 
how to operate all of these fancy new features of IPv6.

regards,
RayH

Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 03/27/2012 07:00 PM, Ray Hunter wrote:
>    
>> My take on this is that a set of a few hundred individual persons who
>> are worried about privacy are more likely to be able to control their
>> own particular machines to correctly override the "default off" setting
>> than a single corporate network manager is to be able to guarantee
>> overriding a "default on" setting on 100% of 10000 machines attached to
>> their network.
>>      
>
> Well, that's because we should probably do something like this:
> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-gont-6man-managing-slaac-policy-00.txt>
>
> While I understand the "procedural constraints" (i.e., document in
> WGLC), I think that much of the discussion that we're having is because
> we have limited choices in a number of areas. Namely:
>
> 1) Inability to convey address-generation policy in RA messages.
> 2) Stable privacy-enhanced addresses
>
> So we worry about selecting the right default because:
>
> 1) We have no mechanism to change that default dynamically
> 2) If we were to use stable addresses, in msot cases that implies
> "privacy-harmful" addresses.
>
> Thanks,
>