> -----Original Message----- > From: Rémi Després [mailto:remi.despres@xxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:53 AM > To: Dan Wing > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: IPv6 NAT? > > Dan Wing wrote : > >> It would not be an application concern. > >> If users want this kind of strong privacy, > > > > Typically, users don't know or care; more often it is the network > > administrator that cares. > > Agreed. > "Users, or network administrators as the case may be," would > be better. Ok, that's fair. > >> they activate this > >> "extended privacy option" in their hosts. > >> Then the stack below applications applies the "one new > >> address for each outgoing connection" rule. > >> Addresses and ports keep their E2E significance for ALL > >> applications. > > > > Thanks for the educating me on where this feature would be > > implemented. I > > have long assumed that v6 privacy is something the > > application would need to be involved with. > > > > > > Is this functionality already available in Vista and Leopard? > > I ignore whether the "privacy extension of stateless > autoconfiguration" of RFC 4941 is supported. > > The "one new address per outgoing connection" rule, which I > propose here for the fist time, would IMHO be worth implementing > in addition to RFC 4941. > > But some more work to specify it in details would be needed > before that. > Some support of the idea would be a prerequisite. It would be interesting to write it down, and to see what would break if the IP stack acquired and provided a fresh v6 address to every new connection. Maybe nothing would break, which would be great. -d _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf