Many thanks for your comments. > > On 08/01/13 14:31, Keith Moore allegedly wrote: > > There are many people (in IETF and elsewhere) who believe that > > applications should never use IP addresses directly or in referrals to > > other applications. This is often cited as if it were some > > architectural principle - in fact just last night, I actually had an AD > > state that to me as if it were a principle. I happen to disagree > > emphatically with that supposed principle, for many reasons, but I won't > > list those reasons here. > > You may have to if you want to press your case. > > > For the moment it only matters that there is a widely held belief that > > all applications should only use names to > > refer to hosts or application endpoints. From that point-of-view, all > > hosts/nodes need to have names, so (by this definition) all hosts/nodes > > need to have public addresses. > > All sources of Internet public services need to have DNS names, but that's it. > Other than that, "names" are only needed in higher layer communications, and > can be handled there. For example, your laptop doesn't need a name to open > communication with a SIP server, but once it does it can use one or more SIP- > level identifiers for its end of the SIP-level communication.
That is the actual case. I assume that the node who are clients would use Privacy Extension RFC. I do not think you use it for your servers. This is why I said that nodes who wants to have privacy should not have "DNS names" or addresses that are defined in DNS but if they want to have they MUST not generate it based on MAC address. Of course it is "should" and not 'must". However, if you have wording issue, I can change it to "Might". Thanks, Best, Hosnieh -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
