Keith Moore wrote: > > > I firmly beleive that RFC3041 should be the default option > and only the > > nodes that require a fixed address should enable that > option. 'Privacy' > > should be the default option. > > no. > having apps work should be the default. > having the reasons for failure be obvious should be the default. > having the apps determine whether they need private addresses or not > (after all, they're the ones that know) should be the default. >
Your logic doesn't make sense. In fact the app that needs a fixed address should know that, and one that can live with a variable one probably has no idea what address is being used anyway. > I have every confidence that apps that can make use of private > addresses, will do so if we give them a uniform API to work with. > Any app that doesn't need a forward or reverse record in DNS will work with a private address, why do they need a special API. What you are looking for is a simple way during address selection to know which address is recorded in DNS. > if you really want privacy to be the default, unplug your network. That is not what private addresses are for and you know it. Rather than bash the new concept for being different, why not provide a constructive proposal like a flag on the local address list to know which have been recorded in DNS? Tony > > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
