> > > As for the impacts on the applications' behavior, I don't worry so > > > much. I've configured my laptop to prefer temporary addresses over a > > > year (for experiences - I'm not a privacy-conscious guy), and I've > > > never seen a trouble with the environment. I admit I'm only using a > > > limited type of applications (and we cannot be sure about future > > > applications), but I believe it covers a certain amount of today's > > > major applications, including pop client, smtp client, www client, ftp > > > client, ssh client, and DNS resolver. In particular, I don't worry > > > about the "relatively short lifetime" through the experience. > > > I don't think it's reasonable to allow "today's major applications" > > to constrain the behavior of all present and future applications. > > I don't quite follow the logic here. Having the stack, by default, > give preference to temporary over public addresses only means that > they will be used without applications having explicitely asked for > their use. For existing applications, that might cause > surprise/problems in some cases. > > Future applications, on the other hand, still need to be written, and > one could argue they will need to make intelligent choices about > whether the use of temporary addresses will cause problems, and code > accordingly.
it still strikes me as the wrong default - it's choosing an option that will cause some apps to fail over one which will not cause those apps to fail. I don't think the privacy issues associated with public addresses are so bad that it's worth the cost of having apps fail mysteriously. and I don't think it's a good idea to have a 'default' that varies from one platform to another either. > I doesn't strike me that giving preference to temporary adddress > "constrains the behavior of future applications". > > > I work with p2p and distributed systems every day, and trying to > > deal with temporary and scoped addresses really is very difficult > > for them. If we are not careful we will end up imposing NAT-like > > restrictions in IPv6 even if IPv6 does not have NATs. > > This would seem to follow only if temporary addresses were the only > addresses available. No one seems to be suggesting that and it > wouldn't make sense anyway. here I'm talking about not just temp addresses but the idea that getting your app to work right might require second-guessing the default address selection mechanisms. i.e. the idea that scoped addresses might be widely used causes us to try to design a heuristic that guesses which address is the right one in each case - one that often prevents the app from working rather than helping it. and encouraging use of scoped addresses might end up imposing restrictions similar to those imposed by NATs. I'm trying to find time to write up an I-D that explains this better. Keith -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
