Re: IPv6 w.g. Last Call on "IPv6 Node Information Queries"

[Alain Durand]

On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 03:21 PM, Dave Thaler wrote:

Itojun writes (in response to Michael Hunter):

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.
Unless you have a way to generate a temporary name for a temporary
addresses (e.g. one automatically generated from the address).
Answering a temporary name is not the only issue. What do you do when 
somebody
is sending a NIQ to your RFC3041 address asking for the list of your 
global
addresses?
If you respond, the little 'privacy' provided by RFC3041 goes out of 
the window.

	- Alain.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------