-----Original Message-----
From: Rémi Després [mailto:remi(_dot_)despres(_at_)free(_dot_)fr]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:53 AM
To: Dan Wing
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: IPv6 NAT?
Dan Wing wrote :
It would not be an application concern.
If users want this kind of strong privacy,
Typically, users don't know or care; more often it is the network
administrator that cares.
Agreed.
"Users, or network administrators as the case may be," would
be better.
Ok, that's fair.
they activate this
"extended privacy option" in their hosts.
Then the stack below applications applies the "one new
address for each outgoing connection" rule.
Addresses and ports keep their E2E significance for ALL
applications.
Thanks for the educating me on where this feature would be
implemented. I
have long assumed that v6 privacy is something the
application would need to be involved with.
Is this functionality already available in Vista and Leopard?
I ignore whether the "privacy extension of stateless
autoconfiguration" of RFC 4941 is supported.
The "one new address per outgoing connection" rule, which I
propose here for the fist time, would IMHO be worth implementing
in addition to RFC 4941.
But some more work to specify it in details would be needed
before that.
Some support of the idea would be a prerequisite.
It would be interesting to write it down, and to see what
would break if the IP stack acquired and provided a fresh
v6 address to every new connection. Maybe nothing would
break, which would be great.
-d
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf