Hi John, > > If so, would it be clearer to say something like the following ? > > > > 'It is recommended that the node be configurable to turn on/off > > the privacy extension for stateless address autoconfiguration, when > > it is implemented.' > > It should be something like that, but I think Alain was suggesting that > a node-based policy would not be sufficient. It should be at least > application based policy, since different applications will not > work with 3041 addresses. >
I agree with Alain that node-based policy is not sufficient at all and per-socket policy is needed for an application to choose temporary or default public address as the source address. I originally thought that two types of configurations are needed in the system: 1) configure the ability to configure a privacy extension interface when the feature is implemented ( i.e. even when the code is there, system may choose not to turn on privacy extension autoconfiguration). 2) per-socket source address selection preference to choose the privacy address when the address is configured in the system. Also, it would be good idea to have a brief discussion on the consequences of using privacy extension or a pointer to the relevant section of RFC3041 where it disucusses that would be useful for implementors to make a choice. Thanks, -Samita -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
