Comment 18 for bug 176125

I *have* read both, and the arguments from "RFC 3041 Considered Harmful"-draft have been
dealt with in RFC4941, Section 7. So there does not seem to be a reason for disabling the privacy extension.

In fact, the arguments form the "Considered Harmful"-draft are, in some sense, not valid -- the current situation "Ipv4+NAT" is in no way better than "IPv6+Privacy-Extension". Given a DOS attack, in both cases you have to block a complete subnet (it's NAT gateway) if somebody within the subnet rapidly changes his IP addrss.