Re: IPv6 Stable Private Addresses RFC 7217

To: Roy Marples <roy%marples.name@localhost>, tech-net%netbsd.org@localhost, spz%netbsd.org@localhost
Subject: Re: IPv6 Stable Private Addresses RFC 7217
From: Fernando Gont <fernando%gont.com.ar@localhost>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 21:41:22 -0300

On 06/04/2014 06:36 AM, Roy Marples wrote:
> 
> My question is this: should this be enabled by default as privacy is a
> good thing, or should the normal hardware based address be kept?

Enable by default -- that is where we're formally going to (see
draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-default-iids).

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando%gont.com.ar@localhost || fgont%si6networks.com@localhost
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1

References:
- IPv6 Stable Private Addresses RFC 7217
  - From: Roy Marples

Prev by Date: Re: ipfilter randomly dropping (ssh-)connections
Next by Date: Re: RFC: mpsafe bridge and NIC drivers (vioif and wm)
Previous by Thread: Re: IPv6 Stable Private Addresses RFC 7217
Next by Thread: multi-threaded nfsd, RPC SVCXPRT re-usage
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index