[ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document - draft v.2 for review.

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
>