IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses

Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au> Tue, 27 March 2012 21:43 UTC

Return-Path: <kauer@biplane.com.au>
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 272E121F85FC for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:43:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6]
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 fTTf7KcARDVf for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:43:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net (unknown [IPv6:2001:44b8:8060:ff02:300:1:6:6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5663621F85FB for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:43:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApIBAN4zck+WZX+7/2dsb2JhbAANOIVAtjYBAQEEI2YLGCoCAlcZsDOSAI1rggyBGAShFYd0gUAX
Received: from eth4284.nsw.adsl.internode.on.net (HELO [192.168.1.207]) ([150.101.127.187]) by ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 28 Mar 2012 08:13:32 +1030
Subject: Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses
From: Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <4F720F7F.2090108@globis.net>
References: <4F716D5C.40402@innovationslab.net> <4F71F217.7000209@globis.net> <4F71FC03.90403@si6networks.com> <4F720F7F.2090108@globis.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-HXbm1wWBOrLvwRZwy8Hg"
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:43:29 +1100
Message-ID: <1332884609.2633.22.camel@karl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3
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 21:43:42 -0000

On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 21:05 +0200, Ray Hunter wrote:
> 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.

The question is not whether the use of privacy addresses (temporary
addresses) should be enabled by default. Though some OSes do that, I
believe.

The question is, where a host *does* have both a temporary and a
non-temporary addresses, which one it should prefer by default. "Prefer
by default" in this case means "select as the source address for new
outbound connections in the absence of specific instructions to do
otherwise".

Regards, K.
 
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer

GPG fingerprint: AE1D 4868 6420 AD9A A698 5251 1699 7B78 4EEE 6017
Old fingerprint: DA41 51B1 1481 16E1 F7E2 B2E9 3007 14ED 5736 F687

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email