IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Why /64

Jeroen Massar <jeroen@massar.ch> Mon, 28 October 2013 08:49 UTC

Return-Path: <jeroen@massar.ch>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB76E21F9D05 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:49:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.04
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.04 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.259, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u51VIGC+TeSC for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from icaras.de.unfix.org (icaras.de.unfix.org [78.47.209.234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4A3E11E8230 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:49:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kami.ch.unfix.org (kami.ch.unfix.org [IPv6:2001:1620:f42:99:7256:81ff:fea5:2925]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by icaras.de.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 02CD6801C2A2; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:49:11 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <526E250E.5050607@massar.ch>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:49:18 +0100
From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@massar.ch>
Organization: Massar
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Roger Jørgensen <rogerj@gmail.com>, Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>, "<ipv6@ietf.org>" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Why /64
References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <E0F0D3DE-D31B-4CC2-9384-DFEBCCB8F557@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|9f43bef2fe7433173858819bd0eeee2dp9OKUJ03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|E0F0D3DE-D31B-4CC2-9384-DFEBCCB8F557@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <CAKD1Yr0q2dY041CMarFfTZZx6=qHC-eJ+74qgiHP-dt7+ga7yg@mail.gmail.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <CAKD1Yr0_anudWNpWRkvMGvD_pvyEscnuqEsPUy4YNm3e9Hue9g@mail.gmail.com> <CAPv4CP9k_J2GCOFhTCBz3U-nQmCWSjc4nceexaWwYZ-nDMpJmw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKFn1SG1PC_kA-pO5Or8VyeaOzvLfpmQe0LiiYkXU_HzNqGzCQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKFn1SG1PC_kA-pO5Or8VyeaOzvLfpmQe0LiiYkXU_HzNqGzCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 08:49:26 -0000

On 2013-10-27 15:50, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
[..]
> Privacy isn't just one single thing. That the user might lose privacy
> elsewhere in the entire stack that make up Internet, that's NOT an
> argument to give up /64 because we have lost privacy anyhow.

I am NOT arguing that a /64 should go the way of the dodo.
I am only stating that this "IPv6 Privacy Address" thing is a myth.

> This /64 split is a good construction.

I fully agree, but IPv6 Privacy Addresses is not one of them.

Greets,
 Jeroen

v2.35.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status