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

Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> Sat, 31 July 2010 11:19 UTC

Return-Path: <teco@inf-net.nl>
X-Original-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B3D43A6885 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Jul 2010 04:19:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.392
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.392 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.207, BAYES_40=-0.185]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JMYXyxUxB5RC for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Jul 2010 04:19:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51D523A67B7 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Jul 2010 04:19:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ewy22 with SMTP id 22so1016254ewy.31 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Jul 2010 04:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.213.28.145 with SMTP id m17mr728268ebc.66.1280575166351; Sat, 31 Jul 2010 04:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.190] (ip56530916.direct-adsl.nl [86.83.9.22]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a48sm4958990eei.18.2010.07.31.04.19.24 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 31 Jul 2010 04:19:25 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
In-Reply-To: <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D034C5D21@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:19:23 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9ED0AF66-FB65-485C-B418-E25200A0DE88@inf-net.nl>
References: <EBE1B970-DADA-4643-BB75-4EDEDE41F758@inf-net.nl> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D034C5D21@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
To: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? Support only EUI-64interfaces?
X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <autoconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf>
List-Post: <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 11:19:03 -0000

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: +44 1245 242194  Fax: +44 1245 242124
> 
> 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.
> ********************************************************************
>