IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way, that it might cause address conflicts?

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Wed, 16 March 2011 10:04 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86FE93A68E8 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 03:04:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 8taVSZRwa4Zd for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 03:04:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [IPv6:2001:4038:0:16::7]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 706DD3A68E0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 03:04:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from macpro.10ww.steffann.nl (unknown [IPv6:2001:610:6ce:1:224:36ff:feef:1d89]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28B2C2034; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 11:05:40 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way, that it might cause address conflicts?
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
In-Reply-To: <3833B29B-1475-4BD7-B94D-7BD70AE4CB3B@equinux.de>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 11:05:40 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FBAEF08B-2E46-47BD-A432-31A584E72786@steffann.nl>
References: <C744C51B-F2B0-4137-B39F-54B8D62F1C97@equinux.de> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1103160951100.87087@mignon.ki.iif.hu> <3833B29B-1475-4BD7-B94D-7BD70AE4CB3B@equinux.de>
To: Markus Hanauska <hanauska@equinux.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org, Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi@niif.hu>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 10:04:17 -0000

Hi,

> How will this help a network admin, when the system log says, that a server that is supposed to have a certain fixed IP or a DHCP client, that is also supposed to have a certain fixed IP (however, one assigned by DHCP) cannot obtain this IP, because some other host with privacy extension enabled is currently using this IP by plain coincident?

The chance of this happening is *very* *very* small. I would worry more about people choosing such an IP address intentionally to cause trouble...
Sander

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email