Fernando Michael and I are doing a last( ?) pass on our I-D, and coming back to your stable-privacy-address (which I like) relevance to the LLA-only ID. Regarding LLA, I have only seen three cases (by routers and end hosts): - EUI-64 based (typical for routers) - static (rare but doable) - random but permanent (such as Windows -- quite similar to your draft but LLA are never changing)
So, I do not think we should go in details around this aspect of LLA as it is orthogonal to our LLA-only approach. Thanks again for all the other comments which made their ways in -04 -éric & michael > -----Original Message----- > From: Fernando Gont [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: mardi 22 octobre 2013 02:11 > To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke); [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-04.txt > > Hi, Eric, > > On 10/20/2013 02:44 PM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > > document. Added reference to RFC 4987 (SYN flood). Clarification > about > > what is meant by a loopback address/interface. The comment about > > static addresses for LLA and draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy- > addresses > > has been ignored because to our knowledge routers never use privacy > > extension addresses for their interfaces. > > You mean slaac? What about link-local addresses? > > Anyway... has this doc been WGLC'ed? If not, I volunteer fore > reviewing the document again (*if* such reviews are needed to > progress the I-D :-) ). > > Cheers, > -- > Fernando Gont > SI6 Networks > e-mail: [email protected] > PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 > > > _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
