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

["Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[e-mail]>]

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.
********************************************************************