Subject: Adding Per-prefix Knob (WAS Re: comments on draft-ietf-ipv6-privacy-addrs-v2-00.txt)

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:54:29 -0400 (EDT)

Hi Pekka/Brian,
	This is the text I added to have a per-prefix enable/disable 
setting. Hope it resolves your issues. 

  "Additionally, sites might wish to selectively enable or disable the
   use of temporary addresses for some prefixes.  For example, a site
   might wish to disable temporary address generation for "Unique local"
   [ULA] prefixes while still generating temporary addresses for all
   other global prefixes.  Another site might wish to enable temporary
   address generation only for the prefixes 2001::/16 and 2002::/16
   while disabling it for all other prefixes.  To support this behavior,
   implementations SHOULD provide a way to enable and disable generation
   of temporary addresses for specific prefix subranges.  This
   per-prefix setting SHOULD override the global settings on the node
   with respect to the specified prefix subranges."

Thanks
Suresh

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004, Suresh Krishnan wrote:

>Hi Pekka/Brian,
>  I was thinking of enable/disable flags for separate prefixes which 
>override the global settings. 
>
>Let's say you want privacy addresses for everything but ULA 
>you would have the following settings
>
>Global   -> Enabled
>fc00::/7 -> Disabled
>
>Let's say Brian just wants to enable them for 2001::/16 and 2002::/16
>
>Global    -> Disabled
>2001::/16 -> Enabled
>2002::/16 -> Enabled
>
>I think that should address both your concern and Brian's concern.
>
>Thanks
>Suresh
>
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Pekka Savola wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>>> Hi Brian,
>>>   That sounds fair to me. I will come up with text with SHOULD language 
>>> for per-prefix enabling of privacy addresses. I just have to figure out 
>>> how it will interact/override with the global enable/disable option. 
>>> 
>>> Pekka,
>>>   If I make this change, would you still like me to add specific defaults 
>>> for ULAs?
>>
>>I can live with 2001::/16 + 2002::/16, but I think that's a bad choice 
>>for multiple reasons.  What if we invent 6to4v2 which uses 2005::/16 
>>and we'd like to automatically apply these semantics to it?  What if 
>>we run out of 2001::/16 for native allocations?  -- actually we've 
>>already 1/3 used it up.
>>
>>Thus being generic and excluding just those that we _know_ aren't
>>really, really global might seem as a better approach -- one that we
>>might not need to tweak e.g., 2-3 years down the road..
>>
>>
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 08:02:20 +0300 (EEST)

>    with respect to the specified prefix subranges."

This would be OK by me if you added a SHOULD or RECOMMENDED that 
fc00::/7 should be in the 'disable' list by default.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 15:15:04 +0200

> fc00::/7 should be in the 'disable' list by default.

OK for me too

    Brian