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

From: "Yu Hua bing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 22:08:19 +0800

> 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.

I think that the bit should be named the DisablePrivacy flag.There are two cases:

(1)If the host supports this flag and the gateway doesn't support, the DisablePrivacy flag is always zero for the host, 
and the host can generate the privacy addresses.
(2)If the host doesn't support this flag and the gateway supports, the host SHOULD ignore this flag.