> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rémi Després [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 11:28 AM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 NAT?
> 
> Dan Wing wrote :
> 
> 
>               ""If a client host takes a new randomly chosen
>               "privacy IID" for each of its outgoing 
> connections: (1) its 
>               address and
>               its chosen port will keep their E2E 
> significance; (2) no one will know
>               where it is in its site; (3) any attempt to 
> call such an address will
>               fail; (4) the host will easily clean up its 
> state when it knows a
>               connection is finished, or when it resets, or 
> when its power is turned
>               off; (5) no stateful logic is needed in any 
> intermediate box; (6)
>               intermediate boxes are not concerned with 
> protocols used (UDP, TCP,
>               SCTP...).""
>                   
> 
>       
>       Sounds like RFC4941.
>         
> 
> Basically, it extends use of Privacy IIDs of RFC4941.
> 
> 
>       I do not believe today's application developers are comfortable
>       with determining if and when their application needs to perform
>       the functions of RFC4941.
>       
>         
> 
> 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.

> 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?

-d


> On the opposite, if NATs MAY be present between the two ends, 
> applications are concerned.
> Some of them may have to work differently depending on 
> whether there is a NAT or not, and depending on which ALG 
> functions it performs.
> That is precisely what can be avoided thanks to IPv6 (and 
> IMHO SHOULD be avoided).
> 
> RD
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Reply via email to