https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752842 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752842#c10 roeland jansen <roeland@linux-it.nl> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|INVALID | --- Comment #10 from roeland jansen <roeland@linux-it.nl> 2012-04-02 17:12:33 UTC --- it would have made sense for portable devices and only when dhcp is used. as with bnc678066 I fully agree with the part Freek said: "in my view Privacy Extension should only be the default for traveling systems. When Privacy Extensions are not enabled, systems that are static in a network always get the same address (i.e. the host part), derived from the MAC address. This makes it possible, in a small network, to use these addresses to communicate with each other, without the need for a DHCP6 and/or DNS server. With Privacy Extension always enabled, the IPv6 address changes each least each 24 hours, which makes it difficult to communicate without additional services that keep track of these changing addresses." What if we did it this way "best of both worlds": 1) if dhcp is used, we assume a portable system and have privacy extensions enabled by default via a box click box next to the IPv4 DHCP selection. 2) if static addresses are used we assume that this is deliberate so disable the privacy extensions by default via a click box next to the IPv4 IP address It's a complete pain in the ass if we want to have IPv6 deployed on a large scale. besides, it doesn't make much sense. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.