IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-06: (with COMMENT)

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Thu, 26 May 2016 06:21 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A5BF12B071; Wed, 25 May 2016 23:21:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 WSxpsXbdoIgM; Wed, 25 May 2016 23:20:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x230.google.com (mail-vk0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A94D812D0A0; Wed, 25 May 2016 23:20:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x230.google.com with SMTP id k1so34631298vka.3; Wed, 25 May 2016 23:20:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=w0Ah5XtWjXL8+WLuyMO6ykCQAfcV/xXYi4lBUvjTYbo=; b=IkmmvEiB1WwCQYsT/1QBe6d6oEnBLQaoKTPOKgdnZTcpUcMkypye6WxxvtDW3K1NW/ nTVsP0Rc80Bhon5T6A+7+8gErwOcfbt5RclWN0g2deXOvScXbrvWgAEit6eDYJsQ6ba/ DigMJuR8wgp5G4ofVMjKVSC4SqK4ehyagZvL5LbgxefbZk1rslMfTW5qtqboLdCYJCtm 9ttc8Sub9F7KODlkK+FLHTD+HMZHNOGxyE8rv3FtbYLh4jxdPDRvBQJzwm3MPzNUD3RJ /jcqRzQIAAYpJJLlUvQ9ls90NScqNZfN6fqPqfJaEyQ/+9W67I8TYmO+4nXSF7h7QcMI ghqA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=w0Ah5XtWjXL8+WLuyMO6ykCQAfcV/xXYi4lBUvjTYbo=; b=MZlRl1Ciju+9018tdReDTkh0aqdEI4bUQxfLo9BEllZ5rNubnGF7QPYShzz10U4Oaq FiSPNlChtOcGBiVIG5ULIJsN5nMs1Y0s5KYaRZu9N+qgSL0w/cylPJjVxdNg6auwfY0h 9SsCGwO532XMcftTtqJVxfw3OYIK+Saoj+IJ+wIBrGN7vjZp4i5arhtGbYri1Me2bMQq AKRVWu9dBUaoLn2GqqXlPx4MZrErlaJyLtI3GXZNS7MWsLpzubeiJUk6LEmJyB0XaXwq Gm6RrdPHK5WlkTuTqvle5ee+SnatCQTiqhL0YQ4yjqil/5Obo0HV9MJLR2s1iSE243xN Pn9A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKMcLpkoJOFBL1phIpNGXsNwmlUO/ug9EqT2zZ5AqAFi0f1fAGTbs9ajtKmso4BAYRdB0SyyiW3grNePA==
X-Received: by 10.31.146.144 with SMTP id u138mr4603621vkd.2.1464243656808; Wed, 25 May 2016 23:20:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.176.3.168 with HTTP; Wed, 25 May 2016 23:20:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0qVdkFty1gphpe4FCwSJZhbH=c=2po48L4uGeTXfGMKA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160504082512.8358.20806.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKD1Yr0qVdkFty1gphpe4FCwSJZhbH=c=2po48L4uGeTXfGMKA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 16:20:27 +1000
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2yVTcRcvRbXUSKJQ+3YiieH3BUMrs7h7t3x4GQzEmgzPg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/9PJZrS063nOTmlodY9d9GO1Sc38>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>, fred.baker@cisco.com, draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability@ietf.org, v6ops-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability.all@tools.ietf.org, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 06:21:00 -0000

On 26 May 2016 at 14:06, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
> wrote:
>>
<snip>
>
>> - I would have liked if you had said that, other things
>> being equal, OSes SHOULD prefer to use privacy addresses as
>> the source address or as a default. Is there a reason to
>> not say that? (Just wondering, I'm not trying to strongly
>> argue that you do.)
>
>
> While I agree, I think this is out of scope for this document and this
> working group.

I agree it is out of scope for this document.

It is in scope for RFC6724, "Default Address Selection for Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)", and that is exactly what it says ;-)

" 5.  Changed the default recommendation for Source Address Selection
       Rule 7 to prefer temporary addresses rather than public
       addresses, while providing an administrative override (in
       addition to the application-specific override that was already
       specified).  This change was made because of the increasing
       importance of privacy considerations, as well as the fact that
       widely deployed implementations have preferred temporary
       addresses for many years without major application issues."


Regards,
Mark.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email