Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? Support only EUI-64interfaces?

[Teco Boot <[e-mail]>]

Chris, thanks for sharing your opinion.

On using DHCP, the draft charter, workitem 1, specifies usage of DHCPv6.
When thinking on how this could work, I want to know what requirements are.
Did I catch "un-touched DHCPv6" at the meeting?

On RFC 3091 and dupont-ipv6-rfc3041harmful, the recommendations are in RFC 4901.

The change on site duplicates for well generated CGA or private IIDs is close 
to zero. I think duplicate address problems with DHCP servers on CPE devices 
are far larger than self-generated IIDs because reboots and non-volatile storage 
or lazy write.

Using DHCP provided addresses could provide more efficient compression with 
RFC 5444. EUI-64 needs 3 (same OUI in homogenous MANET) or 8 octets.
CGA or private IIDs needs 8 octets.
Centrally managed addresses could result in less, with 1 octet at a minimum.
This would be a good reason to use the more centralized approach.

Teco.


Op 30 jul 2010, om 15:52 heeft Dearlove, Christopher (UK) het volgende geschreven:

> Teco
>> Question: can we get around a MUST in a standards track RFC?
>> I don't think so.
> 
> There is the "don't use that RFC, use another one - or none"
> approach.
> 
>> Second question, on first item in charter: do we limit ourself
>> to MANET routers that has modified EUI-64 link-locals?
> 
> Definitely not. There are issues with EUI-64. One of these is
> privacy/security. If I use a device today, and use the same
> device at a different time and in a different place, it's still
> clearly identified as the same device. That can be a problem.
> 
> There's a discussion in RFC 3041. That's obsoleted by RFC 4941.
> I mention the older version as someone was concered enough to
> write draft-dupont-ipv6-rfc3041harmful-05.txt that argued against
> RFC 3041 (but never made it to RFC). My point is, there are issues,
> and people of goodwill and expertise disagree on the subject.
> Probably because of different backgrounds and assumptions. One
> size does not fit all.
> 
> -- 
> Christopher Dearlove
> Technology Leader, Communications Group
> Networks, Security and Information Systems Department
> BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
> West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
> Tel: [phone]  Fax: [phone]
> 
> BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
> Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87,
> Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
> Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687
> 
> ********************************************************************
> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
> distribute its contents to any other person.
> ********************************************************************
>