Jim and all,
Jim Bound wrote:
> >> There is a draft to fix it.
> >
> > Yes? Which one is that? the latest draft also recognizes the
> >privacy problem as well.
>
> THe draft Bill provided in his mail to this forum. I have read Thomas's
> draft and it will work, he provides two solutions. I would also like to
> see a solution where the node administrator can provide a seed for the
> EUI token too.
Agreed there are two potential solutions on the table presently. But
neither of them apply to autoimplimnentation do they? No, they don't,
and hence the concern still remains for obvious reasons. I don't
think I need to outline those reasons in detail as they have already been
stated very eloquently by others quite nicely.
>
>
> > IPv6 has not been widely deployed.
> >
> > Not likely to be either unless or until these problems in the
> >spec are corrected.
>
> On the contrary. I believe IPv6 will be deployed on Intranet's first
> and the deployment will happen from within to without and ISPs and
> routers will be last to deploy IPv6, which is why we need transition
> mechanisms like 6to4.
On IntrAnets, maybe. But on a broad scale on the Internet, I have
my doubts for several other reasons other than just privacy, 6to4
not withstanding.
>
>
> > The vendors will fix it when the draft is worked.
> >.
> >. That may be, let's hope so. But there seems to be some
> >.resistance to doing that presently. Hence public exposure is
> >necessary in order for the proper pressure to be brought to
> >bear in order to underscore that this problem MUST be fixed.
>
> As a note. Thomas Narten made us aware of this long ago before the
> draft came out. Its been on the implementation issue agenda for a long
> time. If anything was late it was a spec. Not the vendors. I know of
> no vendor or implementor that has stated they would not fix this issue.
Yes, possibly your conclusion here is correct, but the vendors should not
be in a position to have to fix this problem. It should be part of the spec
to begin with, which is the crux of my argument.
>
>
> >> The press is being typical for the 90's.
> >
> > The press is always typical, regardless of the decade.
>
> At least in the U.S. it is far worse than it has ever been before I can
> recall or from the history lessons I have absorbed.
Well you may be correct here. But I doubt it really, as this has been
a complaint for as long I I can remember and even before. SO the
perception is a matter of conjecture.
> What has happened
> here is a complete abuse of the U.S. 1st ammendment which is the right
> to free speech. The articles accusing the IETF and IPv6 of being flawed
> and sitting on their backside, were like yelling Fire in a crowded
> theatre.
SOme do, and some postulate or oversee what need to be done.
This is a fundamental truth in any society.
As to the "Yelling of fire in a crowded theater" as it may relate
to 1st amendment, I find this is always the charge that those that
have been caught when they are guilty. Hardly a realistic defense
in this instance.
>
>
> 1. The IETF is not lax here at all. The problem is well understood and
> under control. Folks can look at Thomas's spec and make comments
> or shoot holes in it. I think its fine as a note, but would
> like to see some manual options by node admins.
Agreed. It needs also some reversal in the autoimplimentation as well.
>
>
> 2. IPv6 is not flawed. If anything IPv6 is more equipped to deal
> with this problem than IPv4 simply cause we have more bits to
> randomize as one solution. IPv4 does not have that luxury.
> This is an IPv4 problem too. I could use the "sophist" argument
> that this uproar is even more reason to move to IPv6 quickly cause
> we can fix it and IPv4 cannot. But that would be dishonorable
> and unethical on my part and also yelling fire in the theatre.
Yes to a point I would tend to agree. BUt we have more experience
with IPv4, and hence have learned to deal with this problem.
>
>
> 3. No Ipv6 implementors have stated they would not make the code
> changes to support this in the Addr Conf spec. So saying
> implementors may not fix it was a complete fabrication by
> that assumption, or that we would ship products for IPv6
> forever with this issue.
>
> This could have affected IPv6 deployment, but it won't cause its not a
> real problem, cause it will get fixed, cause it is not and never was a
> basic flaw in the pristine and elegant design and architecture of the
> Next Internet Generation Protocol, which we call IPv6.
>
> But more to the philosophical point which I find great irony with is the
> entire notion of privacy. The best privacy is to live in the mountains
> of some place in a cabin and not participate in the world, if one has
> the ability to do so. But at the other extreme when you participate on
> the Internet or as one of my colleagues put it elsewhere when you make a
> phone call and give out your unlisted number your privacy is reduced.
>
> /jim
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
