To my understanding, rfc4941 meant to use CGA exactky as defined in rfc 3972. The modified CGA algorithm in draft-rafiee-6man-ra-privacy has nothing to do with CGA. How are u going to do with the CGA parameter? There is no meaning in send modifier in CGA parameter then. If modifier is meant to be kept to the IP address owner, modifer could be viewed as secret, as defined in draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses.
IMHO, use CGA just for a random IP address is a waste. [email protected] 写于 2013-05-05 03:17:37: > Has anybody had a chance to look at this draft > (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rafiee-6man-ra-privacy )? Any comments? > The aim of this draft is to adapt the current RFC to the latest European law > http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-46_en.htm?locale=en and to > accommodate the needs of customers with relation to the new law for a long > term period. The purpose is to allow users to choose their means to the > privacy and anonymity within a network as well as across networks. > > There is still an option of merging this draft with other drafts, that > address the issue of allowing users to set the lifetime of the IP address > during the installation or an option to set it by the users, if people on > the mailing list thinks it would be useful. > Share your technical ideas. > > Thanks, > Best, > Hosnieh > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > --------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
