Re: last call comments for draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-06

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Fernando,

Please note that this is not an objection.

At 12:40 22-04-2013, Fernando Gont wrote:
PLease see the Appendix.

I read that. I was confused by the short title (Stable Privacy Addresses) at first. I didn't see much discussion in the draft about privacy considerations. For what it is worth there isn't much in RFC 4941 either. I am not sure whether it is worth covering that angle in the draft; it may end up being too much work.

Privacy addresses are employed in addition to traditional SLAAC
addresses -- hence they don't mitigate address scanning. FWIW, this is
all discussed in the I-D.

Yes, I read that. Privacy is a bit more than address scanning. From an implementation perspective the document is good. It is difficult to tell how the document fits in the bigger (IPv6) picture. I'll mention it; I am not suggesting that anything be done about it.

It'd be "conditionally-compliant", but not fully-compliant.

It would be easier to say:

  It is RECOMMENDED that implementations provide a configuration option to
  enable or disable the use of this algorithm for generating Interface
  Identifiers.

I didn't include an explanation for the recommendation as it seems obvious to me.

BTW, you could steal some text from RFC 4941 for the 64-bit comment:

 "Note that an IPv6 identifier does not necessarily have to be 64 bits in
  length, but the algorithm specified in this document is targeted towards
  64-bit interface identifiers."

Regards,
-sm




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]