In your previous mail you wrote: If only the users that have concerns about privacy will end up using temp addresses (RFC3041) we will end up with a minority group of techno-geeks or as you call us 'paranoids' highly observable and easy to identify from the crowd. => as a hot defender of protocol 50 I don't follow you...
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. I don't want to be sorrounded by boxes with EUI-64 based addresses and be myself the only one running RFC3041. => in fact we have the choice between to keep the u/g bit stuff with consequences like RFC 3041 or just to throw this heritage of 8+8 (because now we know how to do a secure two-space system: HIP) and: - forget the universal bit - rely on DAD in order to avoid IID collisions - reduce IID size (32 bits are enough for common links) - weaken the IID to a host part etc. Perhaps this is too late but I'd like to see a sound opinion, i.e., not in the same time dreaming over adding some semantics to bits in IIDs and reject our IMEI based IID draft with spurious arguments (perhaps in Japan where there are tens of millions of phones with data services, i.e., a need for an universal IID registry, things will be a bit different :-). Regards [EMAIL PROTECTED] PS: my very personnal opinion is 64 bit IIDs are a huge waste of address space. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
