I disagree with the wording of this section regarding the use of DHCPv6 for privacy addresses:
At 12:03 AM 10/20/2004 -0400, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
* Added the following text specifying the conditions for DHCPv6 to be used for privacy
"One way to avoid some of the problems discussed above is to use DHCPv6 [DHCPV6] for obtaining addresses. The DHCPv6 server could be configured to hand out addresses that change over time. But DHCPv6 will solve the privacy issue only if it frequently handed out constantly changing addresses to the nodes. Since this does not happen automatically, and is difficult to configure manually, DHCPv6 is not really suited for solving the privacy issues addressed by this document."
DHCPv6 includes mechanisms for assignment and management of "temporary addresses" (see section 12 of RFC 3315). The frequency of reassignment for temporary addresses can be as often as desired, and is independent of the lifetimes for non-temporary addresses. "difficult to configure manually" is an entirely subjective assessment, and is dependent on the specific implementation rather than the protocol itself.
Therefore, I think the text should be edited to read:
One way to avoid some of the problems discussed above is to use DHCPv6 [DHCPV6] for obtaining addresses. Section 12 of RFC 3315 discusses the use of DHCPv6 for the assignment and management of "temporary addresses" (privacy addresses). Temporary addresses are managed separately from non-temporary addresses, so a host can differentiate between the two types of addresses. The lifetimes of temporary addresses are independent of the lifetimes of any other addresses, so the frequency of replacement for temporary addresses can be adjusted as required.
I wonder if section 2.2 is required at all? I don't think experience with IPv4 addressing has much bearing on IPv6. For example, a device gets an entirely new IPv4 address when it moves to a new connection point, so tracking that device as it moves between connection points is hard. If section 2.2 is retained, some of the details should be corrected.
Finally, at the risk of nit-picking, I wonder if the phrase "without the necessity of a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) server" is really necessary? Is the sole purpose of stateless address autoconfiguration to avoid the menace of DHCP, or does stateless address autoconfiguration avoid manual configuration, as well? How about "Nodes use IPv6 stateless address autoconfiguration generate addresses using a combination of locally available information and information advertised by routers." (borrowed from RFC 2462)?
- Ralph
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
