In your previous mail you wrote: > You keep saying "privacy", but without explaining the problem or > how IPv4 address sharing makes privacy better or worse than IPv6.
=> there are two levels about the privacy problem: the technical one which is explained/addressed in the draft (section 4) and worse the way it can be perceived which is less (or not at all) rational as the long and silly history of the "privacy extensions for stateless address autoconfiguration in IPv6" (RFC 3041 and 4941) has shown. So there is a technical and a "political" argument against the whole HOST_ID idea. Unfortunately the IETF (and this mailing list) can only deal with the first one. Regards francis.dup...@fdupont.fr PS: to discuss about the technical point IMHO no HOST_ID proposal brings a clear advantage. The real issue (address sharing breaks the address == identity assumption) has to be solved by the impacted part (i.e., people should accept this assumption doesn't apply)... _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
