Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost> writes: > On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 04:54:50PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote: >> On Jun 4, 2014, at 4:52 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger >> <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost> wrote: >> > Replacement or addition? I'm not sure I like removing the normal MAC >> > derived autoconfig address, but I am certainly fine with having a >> > separate (non-link local) address. This would be more in line with the >> > behavior of the privacy extension implementetd in many systems. >> >> It's intended by the IETF to be a replacement. The address is meant >> to be stable, so you don't need some other stable address for receiving >> connections, the way you would with temporary addresses. > > In that case, enabling it by default would certainly violate POLA. It might, but the automatic MAC-derived addresses can be viewed as a bug (that seems to be how the privacy extensions people view them), and turning them off can be viewed as a bug fix. I think the key question is whether current IETF standards-track documents say that the RFC7217 addresses SHOULD be the default.
Description: PGP signature