IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-address-generation-privacy-01.txt

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Tue, 18 February 2014 18:02 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B76671A067C; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:02:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yLuBoly6wYwH; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:02:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:d10:2000:e::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ACE11A024B; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:02:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [2001:5c0:1400:a::12e3] by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <fgont@si6networks.com>) id 1WFp0M-0003aC-TK; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 19:02:51 +0100
Message-ID: <53039F2E.2060209@si6networks.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 14:58:06 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au>, "internet-drafts@ietf.org" <internet-drafts@ietf.org>, "i-d-announce@ietf.org" <i-d-announce@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-address-generation-privacy-01.txt
References: <20140214184335.29433.45425.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1392435444.66015.YahooMailNeo@web162206.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <1392435444.66015.YahooMailNeo@web162206.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/-DcEFnUw4E2fArJLRSjkCYgoJ60
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:02:59 -0000

On 02/15/2014 12:37 AM, Mark ZZZ Smith wrote:
> 
> I think it would be useful to not specifically couple address
> configuration methods (SLAAC, DHCPv6, static/manual) with address
> generation methods (MAC derived, RFC4941, cryptographically generated
> etc.). I think what is being discussed about addresses equally
> applies regardless of the address configuration method used to
> configure the resulting IPv6 address on an interface.

Makes sense -- although for the most part, they do seem to be coupled in
practice.


e.g., how do you do CGAs with DHCPv6, etc.?

It seems to me that while there's a distinction between the mechanism
used for address configuration and the resulting IID, for most cases
there's a 1 to 1 mapping... and it's valuable how such IIDs are
typically generated.

Thoughts?

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email