draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis-04.txt   draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis-05.txt 
IPv6 Maintenance (6man) Working Group F. Gont IPv6 Maintenance (6man) Working Group F. Gont
Internet-Draft SI6 Networks / UTN-FRH Internet-Draft SI6 Networks / UTN-FRH
Obsoletes: rfc4941 (if approved) S. Krishnan Obsoletes: rfc4941 (if approved) S. Krishnan
Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson Research Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson Research
Expires: May 6, 2020 T. Narten Expires: June 12, 2020 T. Narten
IBM Corporation IBM Corporation
R. Draves R. Draves
Microsoft Research Microsoft Research
November 3, 2019 December 10, 2019
Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6 Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6
draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis-04 draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis-05
Abstract Abstract
Nodes use IPv6 stateless address autoconfiguration to generate Nodes use IPv6 stateless address autoconfiguration to generate
addresses using a combination of locally available information and addresses using a combination of locally available information and
information advertised by routers. Addresses are formed by combining information advertised by routers. Addresses are formed by combining
network prefixes with an interface identifier. This document network prefixes with an interface identifier. This document
describes an extension that causes nodes to generate global scope describes an extension that causes nodes to generate global scope
addresses with randomized interface identifiers that change over addresses with randomized interface identifiers that change over
time. Changing global scope addresses over time makes it more time. Changing global scope addresses over time makes it more
skipping to change at page 1, line 45 skipping to change at page 1, line 45
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 6, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 12, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 11, line 22 skipping to change at page 11, line 22
created. When updating the preferred lifetime of an existing created. When updating the preferred lifetime of an existing
temporary address, it would be set to expire at whichever time is temporary address, it would be set to expire at whichever time is
earlier: the time indicated by the received lifetime or earlier: the time indicated by the received lifetime or
(CREATION_TIME + TEMP_PREFERRED_LIFETIME - DESYNC_FACTOR). A (CREATION_TIME + TEMP_PREFERRED_LIFETIME - DESYNC_FACTOR). A
similar approach can be used with the valid lifetime. similar approach can be used with the valid lifetime.
3. If the node has not configured any temporary address for the 3. If the node has not configured any temporary address for the
corresponding prefix, the node SHOULD create a new temporary corresponding prefix, the node SHOULD create a new temporary
address for such prefix. address for such prefix.
Note:
For example, a host might implement prefix-specific policies
such as not configuring temporary addresses for the Unique
Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (ULA) [RFC4193] prefix.
4. When creating a temporary address, the lifetime values MUST be 4. When creating a temporary address, the lifetime values MUST be
derived from the corresponding prefix as follows: derived from the corresponding prefix as follows:
* Its Valid Lifetime is the lower of the Valid Lifetime of the * Its Valid Lifetime is the lower of the Valid Lifetime of the
prefix and TEMP_VALID_LIFETIME prefix and TEMP_VALID_LIFETIME
* Its Preferred Lifetime is the lower of the Preferred Lifetime * Its Preferred Lifetime is the lower of the Preferred Lifetime
of the prefix and TEMP_PREFERRED_LIFETIME - DESYNC_FACTOR. of the prefix and TEMP_PREFERRED_LIFETIME - DESYNC_FACTOR.
5. A temporary address is created only if this calculated Preferred 5. A temporary address is created only if this calculated Preferred
skipping to change at page 17, line 10 skipping to change at page 17, line 10
7. Section 3.2.3 from [RFC4941] was removed, based on the 7. Section 3.2.3 from [RFC4941] was removed, based on the
explanation of that very section of RFC4941. explanation of that very section of RFC4941.
8. All the verified errata for [RFC4941] has been incorporated. 8. All the verified errata for [RFC4941] has been incorporated.
9. Acknowledgments 9. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank (in alphabetical order) Brian The authors would like to thank (in alphabetical order) Brian
Carpenter, Tim Chown, Lorenzo Colitti, David Farmer, Tom Herbert, Bob Carpenter, Tim Chown, Lorenzo Colitti, David Farmer, Tom Herbert, Bob
Hinden, Christian Huitema, Dave Plonka, Michael Richardson, Mark Hinden, Christian Huitema, Dave Plonka, Michael Richardson, Mark
Smith, and Johanna Ullrich for providing valuable comments on earlier Smith, Johanna Ullrich, and Timothy Winters, for providing valuable
versions of this document. comments on earlier versions of this document.
This document incoporates errata submitted for [RFC4941] by (in This document incoporates errata submitted for [RFC4941] by (in
alphabetical order) Jiri Bohac and Alfred Hoenes. alphabetical order) Jiri Bohac and Alfred Hoenes.
This document is based on [RFC4941] (a revision of RFC3041). Suresh This document is based on [RFC4941] (a revision of RFC3041). Suresh
Krishnan was the sole author of RFC4941. He would like to Krishnan was the sole author of RFC4941. He would like to
acknowledge the contributions of the ipv6 working group and, in acknowledge the contributions of the ipv6 working group and, in
particular, Jari Arkko, Pekka Nikander, Pekka Savola, Francis Dupont, particular, Jari Arkko, Pekka Nikander, Pekka Savola, Francis Dupont,
Brian Haberman, Tatuya Jinmei, and Margaret Wasserman for their Brian Haberman, Tatuya Jinmei, and Margaret Wasserman for their
detailed comments. detailed comments.
 End of changes. 6 change blocks. 
6 lines changed or deleted 11 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/