[Int-dir] RFC7217 [was An IOT DIR review of draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane]

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 23/05/2018 02:06, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> Hello Toerless:
...
> 
>>> -           "ACP nodes MUST perform standard IPv6 operations across ACP
>> virtual
>>> interfaces including SLAAC (Stateless Address Auto-Configuration -
>>> RFC4862])"
>>>
>>> They may actually prefer Optimistic DAD RFC 4429 since address duplication
>> is highly improbable as long as you .
>>
> 
>> Added:
>>
>>         <t>"Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD)" according to
>>         <xref target="RFC4429"/> is RECOMMENDED because the likelyhood for
>>         duplicates between ACP nodes is highly improbable as long as
>>         the address can be formed from a globally unique local assigned
>> identifier
>>         (e.g.: EUI-48/EUI-64, see below).</t>
>>
> [PT>] 
> [PT>] I'm unsure what your recommendation for the interface ID is thus the discussion on RFC 7217.

Privacy is not really an issue here. Firstly we're talking about
devices, not people. More important, we're talking about ULA
addresses that will not be visible outside the domain covered
by the ACP. So the old-fashioned technique of using modified EUI-64
would be safe, and there is no real need to use RFC7217.

However, since RFC8064 recommends RFC7217 for all SLAAC nodes,
and the ACP uses SLAAC, RFC7217 is automatically recommended
by the existing standards. I don't think we should mention EUI-64.

   Brian