On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Alain Durand wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 8, 2003, at 07:34 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> This looks like a strong draft. Several issues exist though.
> >>
> >> 1) There is no mention of RFC 3041 (privacy enhanced) addresses. Both
> >> the issue as to if they should be responded with and if they should be
> >> responded to needs to be addressed.
> >
> > just FYI from implementation POV: KAME implementation does not
> > include RFC3041 addresses in the response by default. there's a
> > configuration flag bit which makes the responder to include RFC3041
> > addresses as well.
> >
> > i guess that sensible default would be not to include RFC3041
> > addresses.
>
> Including RFC3041 addresses in the list of global addresses returned is
> one part of the issue.
I can certainly see this..
> The other one is: if a NIQ is send to a RFC3041 address, do you reply to
> it? My take is that by default, you should not and have a switch to
> override.
But I fail to see any use for this. Typically when you implement these, I
think they'll listen to all addresses ("any incoming packet"). It seems
that disabling one set of addresses and even giving users a toggle of
rather little value would be useless. But of course, one might have to
implement differently too.
But the spec could say e.g. that NIQ's don't need to be answered at
RFC3041 addresses, and leave at it that.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
