Comment 7 for bug 1068756

Neil Wilson <email address hidden> writes:

> No the IPv6 system prefers privacy addresses over standard addresses if not
> explicitly told otherwise.
>
> Server *userspace software* should tell the system explicitly what it wants
> to do so that clients can connect to it.

You keep asserting this but don't back it up in any meaningful way.
It's turning this bug into a rather useless episode of "did", "didn't",
"did", "didn't".

> The problem is with the userspace software, not the IPv6
> configuration. It should be selecting addresses that it requires. Much
> outbound server software can benefit from privacy addresses and your
> solution denies them that option because of faulty binding in the
> userspace software.

I'm sorry but I don't believe the vast majority of server owners care
about the privacy of the MAC address of their servers. Clients
(generally speaking) map directly to an individual (i.e. human being),
servers (generally speaking) don't.

> So I disagree. The problem is userspace software not using the 'hint'
> IOCTL in IPv6 address binding to tell the operating system what type
> of addresses it requires.
>
> In other words IPv4 thinking in an IPv6 world.

No, sorry, it's called being realistic and pragmatic. If the vast
majority of software is "doing it wrong"¹, then privacy extensions
should be turned off on the server until a reasonable subset of software
is "fixed".

--
James

¹ And I don't think that's actually a given but let's run with it for
  the sake of argument.