Re: comments on draft-ietf-ipv6-privacy-addrs-v2-00.txt

[Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Pekka/Brian,
  I was thinking of enable/disable flags for separate prefixes which 
override the global settings. 

Let's say you want privacy addresses for everything but ULA 
you would have the following settings

Global   -> Enabled
fc00::/7 -> Disabled

Let's say Brian just wants to enable them for 2001::/16 and 2002::/16

Global    -> Disabled
2001::/16 -> Enabled
2002::/16 -> Enabled

I think that should address both your concern and Brian's concern.

Thanks
Suresh

 On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Pekka Savola wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>> Hi Brian,
>>   That sounds fair to me. I will come up with text with SHOULD language 
>> for per-prefix enabling of privacy addresses. I just have to figure out 
>> how it will interact/override with the global enable/disable option. 
>> 
>> Pekka,
>>   If I make this change, would you still like me to add specific defaults 
>> for ULAs?
>
>I can live with 2001::/16 + 2002::/16, but I think that's a bad choice 
>for multiple reasons.  What if we invent 6to4v2 which uses 2005::/16 
>and we'd like to automatically apply these semantics to it?  What if 
>we run out of 2001::/16 for native allocations?  -- actually we've 
>already 1/3 used it up.
>
>Thus being generic and excluding just those that we _know_ aren't
>really, really global might seem as a better approach -- one that we
>might not need to tweak e.g., 2-3 years down the road..
>
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@xxxxxxxx
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------