|
My reading of the current and proposed specs are that
privacy addresses may be generated in addition to autoconfigured addresses (of
scope greater than link-local). Is there any provision for having *only* privacy addresses, and no
autoconfigured addresses? This would make it more difficult (in a good
way) to find interfaces using inbound connections, such as scanning. In
my reading of [http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-privacy-addrs-v2-04.txt],
section 3, bullet 2 begins “Create additional addresses
…”. Perhaps there is another reference, but that implies that
privacy addresses can only complement public autoconfigured addresses, not take
the place of them. I’m sure there would be side-effects (like how could
an administrator invalidate a privacy address early by removing or changing the
prefix being sent by the router if autoconfiguration is not in use). So, my question then is “Do the current or proposed
specs allow me to have an interface with a link-local address and a privacy
address only, no static and no autoconfigured”? |
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
