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

"Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <> Fri, 30 July 2010 13:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C3493A69C5 for <>; Fri, 30 Jul 2010 06:52:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.818
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.818 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.219, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y7iX1Mn5r6ij for <>; Fri, 30 Jul 2010 06:52:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B87C3A693B for <>; Fri, 30 Jul 2010 06:52:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.55,287,1278284400"; d="scan'208";a="79384762"
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 30 Jul 2010 14:52:42 +0100
Received: from glkms1102.GREENLNK.NET ( []) by (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id o6UDqgfM004281; Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:52:42 +0100
Received: from GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET ([]) by glkms1102.GREENLNK.NET with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:52:42 +0100
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:52:39 +0100
Message-ID: <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D034C5D21@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
In-Reply-To: <>
thread-topic: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? Support only EUI-64interfaces?
thread-index: Acsv3nC9JwRqDHGBSyy8/El4C4NDYgADYbzw
References: <>
From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <>
To: "Teco Boot" <>, <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jul 2010 13:52:42.0501 (UTC) FILETIME=[7B262350:01CB2FEE]
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? Support only EUI-64interfaces?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:52:28 -0000

> 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"

> 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.