On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Keith Moore wrote: > I believe that temporary addresses should be available, but they > should NOT be enabled by default. Many applications will fail in > odd ways if assigned a temporary address. Temporary addresses are > best viewed as a tool which may enhance privacy but are not applicable > to all situations. The best default for the API is to assign a > stable address, and let those apps which can benefit from temporary > addresses request them specifically. > > I respect the desire for temporary addresses (and AFAIK I was one of > the first people to raise concerns about embedding tracable information > in an IPv6 address) but I don't think it's a good idea to effectively > change the API in a way that would break apps at this late date.
The idea behind temporary addresses is IMO flawed (see draft-dupont-ipv6-rfc3041harmful-00.txt, there are some other issues too). They provide extra privacy in some cases, but are not a magic bullet. On the other hand, they make the others' life quite conflict. Therefore, I'm strongly against preferring temporary addresses. -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
