Subject: Re: draft-yhb-6man-ra-privacy-flag-01

From: huabing yu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 20:13:12 +0800

On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 22:40:45 +1100, Karl Auer wrote：
> My reading of RFC3484 is that privacy addresses are NOT preferred, but
that it should be possible on a host to change that preference. See "Rule 7"
in Section 5 (on page 11):
>"Rule 7: Prefer public addresses. If SA is a public address and SB is a
temporary address, then prefer SA. Similarly, if SB is a public address and
SA is a temporary address, then
>prefer SB. [...] Implementations MUST provide a mechanism allowing an
application to reverse the sense of this preference and prefer temporary
addresses over public
>addresses[...]"

RFC3484 page 11, the last sentense:
Implementations for which privacy considerations outweigh these application
compatibility concerns MAY reverse the sense of this rule and by default
prefer temporary addresses over public addresses.
Windows OS prefers temporary addresses over public addresses by default.

Yu Hua bing

---

From: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 08:44:29 -0800

On Mar 7, 2011, at 4:13 AM, huabing yu wrote:
> 
> Implementations for which privacy considerations outweigh these application compatibility concerns MAY reverse the sense of this rule and by default prefer temporary addresses over public addresses.

This.  Application compatibility concerns almost never trump privacy concerns.  And when they do, it's usually a source of shame.

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

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 14:08:35 -0500

> This.  Application compatibility concerns almost never trump privacy concerns.  And when they do, it's usually a source of shame.

It really depends on the nature of the application.  Some applications need relatively stable addresses; others don't.  There's nothing shameful about needing relatively stable addresses.

Keith