Dear Fernando, My apologies for the delayed response:
On 4/13/12 2:31 PM, Fernando Gont wrote: > hI, Eliot, > > On 04/13/2012 10:09 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: >> At one point you write that the intent is to replace EUI-64-based >> addresses (Section 5). > Exactly. > > >> But that doesn't seem to jibe with what you >> write in the intro about RFC-4941. > Could you please cite the "conflicting" text? Yes, I'm looking at the quoted paragraphs (I'm not quite sure from where you're quoting): > As noted in [RFC4941], "anytime a fixed identifier is used in > multiple contexts, it becomes possible to correlate seemingly > unrelated activity using this identifier". Therefore, since > "privacy addresses" [RFC4941] do not eliminate the use of fixed > identifiers for server-like functions, they only *partially* > mitigate the correlation of host activities (see Section 7 for > some example attacks that are still possible with privacy > addresses). Therefore, it is vital that the privacy And so on. In essence you set up an argument against 4941 but that isn't really your argument for the draft and so I don't really know what it's doing there. But perhaps that's not as important as this: > > >> I am concerned that adopting this >> mechanism will make matters worse if this mechanism is being used as an >> alternative to CGAs, as opposed to EUI-64s.. > I don't follow. Could you clarify your concern? You argue that this is an alternative to EUI-64s. But in practice I am concerned that people will not use this as an alternative to EUI-64s, but instead as an alternative to CGAs, thus improving tracibility (not generally a good thing). Please explain what I'm missing (I'm sure it's a lot). Eliot -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
