Re: [v6ops] Interesting problems with using IPv6

[Andrew 👽 Yourtchenko <[e-mail]>]

On 9/10/14, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 09/09/2014 12:41 PM, Andrew 👽  Yourtchenko wrote:
>>
>> Of course, the amount of manual work this requires today means that
>> the A-bit is turned off and the DHCPv6 is being used. Which may be
>> perfectly okay - but if it is not, and we do assert that "An RA with
>> prefix having an A-bit set and default settings, should not cause the
>> 10x expansion to the resource requirements compared to Legacy IP",
>> seems like some sort of a correction in default stacks/apps behavior
>> with respect to temporary addresses could be useful.
>
> FWIW:
> <https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-gont-6man-managing-privacy-extensions-01.txt>

Yes, we even discussed this draft with you at some point :-).

My opinion (while agreeing with the spirit of this draft, somewhat) is
still - it is too late.

All it would do today is split the hosts into two groups - who
understand this bit, and those who do not, adding more difficulty to
the life of network administrator, who, having turned the knob "no
temp address please" would expect one behavior, and get a mix of two
in the best case.

(This all puts aside any philosophical arguments of whether the
network should dictate the nodes whether they can use the temporary
"privacy" addresses or not: temporary addresses go against the
incentives of basically *any* sufficiently large network
administrator, so this bit would be almost universally on).

If the host OSes/apps want to be sensible with the usage of temporary
addresses, they can do so without any flag.

--a



>
> Thanks,
> --
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: [e-mail]
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
>
>
>
>
>