IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Tue, 27 March 2012 15:20 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
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 C13D421F8913 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 08:20:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Aht3T09YsyhK for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 08:20:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3701D21F8905 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 08:20:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach.fuaim.com [206.197.161.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 276AE88181 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 08:20:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-5588.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-5588.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.85.136]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2C68130017 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 08:20:13 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4F71DAAB.601@innovationslab.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:20:11 -0400
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120313 Thunderbird/11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses
References: <4F716D5C.40402@innovationslab.net> <4F71B5E2.5000400@si6networks.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F71B5E2.5000400@si6networks.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:20:14 -0000

On 3/27/12 8:43 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 03/27/2012 09:33 AM, Brian Haberman wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Brian: Terminology issue here: Are "public addresses" a short hand for
> "IPv6 addresses with Modified EUI-64 format identifiers"? -- I ask
> because all of these addresses are public.

Based on the terminology in 3484 and 3484bis, I am asking for the WG's 
view of preferring public over temporary (rather than private) addresses 
as defined in RFC 4941.

Regards,
Brian

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status