[ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document - draft v.2 for review.
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document - draft v.2 for review.
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document - draft v.2 for review.
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jan Zorz - Go6
jan at go6.si
Mon May 15 12:44:58 CEST 2017
On 15/05/2017 12:21, Tim Chown wrote: > But we should not do anything to preclude privacy-enhancing methods being applied at any layer. Hi, But how does changing the address prefix provide any possible privacy enhancement at all? It's usually L7 that provides/breaks nearly all of that... Nevertheless, for those people being completely lost with how technology works and to assure their warm&fuzzy feeling while dictating how others should build and run their networks - I would agree to add your proposed text below to the document. ;) Cheers and thnx, Jan > > I would argue that the BCOP text should say: > > a) ISPs are encouraged to support both stable (persistent) and privacy-oriented (non-persistent) prefixes as options for customers; > > b) stable/persistent prefixes are recommended as the default, in the absence of legal requirements to the contrary in any specific country. > > I’d also note that the biggest UK IPv6 deployment is a “sticky” /56 to residences; it’s hard for an ISP to guarantee a lifetime stable prefix, but they can take steps to minimise the likelihood of a change being needed. > > Tim >
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document - draft v.2 for review.
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document - draft v.2 for review.
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]