Has anyone communicated directly with the Apple folks on this issue?
Doug
On 10/21/2013 01:37 PM, Phil Mayers wrote:
On 21/10/2013 21:19, Cutler James R wrote:
4. Does Apple's approach to IPv6 privacy addresses properly support
the intent of privacy addresses?
My tentative answer is, "Yes, and we need to learn to cope."
The general approach perhaps, but the rollover timing is way, way too
aggressive IMO. It should be on a timer, not driven by PHY wake events.
Even 300 seconds would be an improvement over the behaviour we're seeing.
As to "we need to learn to cope" - lots of networks have huge amounts of
capital investment which can't just be ripped out and replaced overnight
because Apple have decided to be aggressive with address rollovers. If
the main outcome is for FIB-pressured sites to disable IPv6 on OUIs
registered to Apple, it's a retrograde step ;o)
Maybe we need a "neigbour un-advert" ICMPv6 message that the old
addresses could be torn down with.
