On 04/29/2013 01:47 AM, Mark Smith wrote: >> What I keep saying is this rfc draft does not have any effect on >> privacy and everything related to the router prefix. >> > > So privacy and security are relative, not absolute. I think this > provides better privacy compared to the use of MAC addresses for > IIDs,
Exactly. > but doesn't provide as much privacy as RFC4941 addresses. If > the level of privacy these stable privacy addresses provides is not > adequate, then you don't use them. You either use RFC4941s, or you > choose not to communicate at all. Actually, if you use RFC4941, you probably want to use stable privacy addresses to replace the traditional SLAAC addresses (or else you'd be subject of the issues described in the Appendix of draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses) Cheers, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: [email protected] PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
