> The fact is that any implementation *will* have a default behavior in the case > that an app ignores this whole issue, which will be the case for most apps > when first ported to IPv6. The question for the IETF is whether we leave > this open (thereby maximising chaos) or define a default (thereby reducing > chaos). I think we need to define a default to reduce chaos. > > I'd argue that the only hosts likely to have temporary addresses are pure clients. > Servers, or hosts trying to play in a genuine peer2peer world, will need permanent > addresses anyway. Since we care about preserving client privacy, but presumably don't > care about preserving server privacy, I'd argue for Rich's default, i.e. the document > as it is.
If we were starting with a brand-new API I'd agree with you. But we're talking about APIs which are in some cases 20 years old, and the default has long been to have stable addresses. it's too late to change it. (and yes, there are lots of programs written to the v4 API which have been ported to v6 with minimal changes - we don't want to break them.) that, and I don't think there is such a thing as a user-programmable, pure-client host. my palm pilot can run a web server, and it's even useful for it to do so. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
