Subject: draft-yhb-6man-ra-privacy-flag-00

From: "Yu Hua bing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 22:19:49 +0800

Hello, what do you think of this draft?

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yhb-6man-ra-privacy-flag/

Abstract

   The temporary addresses described by RFC4941 makes it more difficult
   for eavesdroppers and other information collectors to track the 
   hosts,but also bring trouble to the network administrators:"when the 
   network is in trouble,it is difficult to find out which host is 
   attacking the other hosts."So some network administrators don't hope
   that the hosts use the temporary addresses. This document provides a 
   solution to these network administrators,and they can specify whether
   the prefixes can be used to generate the temporary addresses.

---

From: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 09:35:12 -0800

On Feb 24, 2011, at 6:19 AM, Yu Hua bing wrote:
> <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yhb-6man-ra-privacy-flag/>

I don't see why using A=0 in the PIO is insufficient for this purpose.

That said, I also think a huge flaw in the draft is that existing hosts interpret the currently unused and reserved bit in the reverse sense, i.e. that privacy addresses are allowed when the value is zero.

If you want to propose a flag that expressly allows SLAAC without RFC 4941 privacy addresses, then the sense of the bit needs to be reversed.  For example, the conceptual variable would be DisablePrivacyAddrs, and the bit in the PIO would be named the NoPrivacy flag.

--
james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
member of technical staff, core os networking