IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Interesting problems with using IPv6

Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> Tue, 09 September 2014 09:54 UTC

Return-Path: <tore@fud.no>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BF001A034D for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 02:54:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.552
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.652] autolearn=ham
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 jg62Z8T3WFeE for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 02:54:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from greed.fud.no (greed.fud.no [IPv6:2a02:c0:1001:100::145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CA721A030A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 02:54:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [2a02:c0:2:1:1194:17:0:1000] (port=35218 helo=echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com) by greed.fud.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <tore@fud.no>) id 1XRI7Z-0006F9-7J; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 11:53:57 +0200
Message-ID: <540ECDD8.9040901@fud.no>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 11:52:24 +0200
From: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>, Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "Dale W. Carder" <dwcarder@wisc.edu>
References: <1410082125488.85722@surrey.ac.uk> <540CB702.3000605@gmail.com> <20140908183339.GB98785@ricotta.doit.wisc.edu> <540E26D9.3070907@gmail.com> <1410227735.13436.YahooMailNeo@web162204.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <540ECB9E.9000102@foobar.org>
In-Reply-To: <540ECB9E.9000102@foobar.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/ajYInuyZpumQjdVYGysC_cXvvS8
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, "l.wood@surrey.ac.uk" <l.wood@surrey.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Interesting problems with using IPv6
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 09:54:09 -0000

* Nick Hilliard

> The network operators did not have admin control of the end hosts and
> could therefore not stop them from using privacy addresses.

That's easily accomplished by setting Autonomous=0 in RA and using
something else for address assignment (like DHCPv6).

No SLAAC => no privacy extensions.

Tore

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email