Re: Feedback on draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Sun, 15 April 2012 02:23 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B52FC21F8566 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 19:23:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6IRRxul-l+dr for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 19:23:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from srv01.bbserve.nl (unknown [IPv6:2a02:27f8:1025:18::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE3AD21F8557 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 19:23:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 222.160.102.84.rev.sfr.net ([84.102.160.222] helo=[10.192.168.68]) by srv01.bbserve.nl with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from <fgont@si6networks.com>) id 1SJF7q-0003su-Vg; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 04:23:39 +0200
Message-ID: <4F8A3124.4090005@si6networks.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 04:23:32 +0200
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Organization: SI6 Networks
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120313 Thunderbird/3.1.20
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Feedback on draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01
References: <E7607B61-9889-43A9-B86B-133BD4238BA2@gmail.com> <1334276068.3945.408.camel@karl> <4F882A44.3080305@si6networks.com> <1334363774.3945.541.camel@karl> <CAAuHL_BCv2q=hDjTLmiviLoRRTbbyU+aSSQ0ETbDDQk==YfmLQ@mail.gmail.com> <C5B723A8-8A24-46BD-94E5-0BA2D8CCB460@cisco.com> <4F89DEE7.1080205@si6networks.com> <C91E67751B1EFF41B857DE2FE1F68ABA03CFD484@TK5EX14MBXC274.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <8C04B19A-6E88-4544-8827-13BB4D672CFE@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <8C04B19A-6E88-4544-8827-13BB4D672CFE@cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Christian Huitema <huitema@microsoft.com>, "ipv6@ietf.org 6man" <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 02:23:44 -0000

On 04/15/2012 01:29 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
> As I read it, section three item one calls for the use of the EUI-64
> in use on the interface, which presumes that the interface is an IEEE
> 802 LAN. There are other interface types. I'd like to see that
> widened to a number *such*as* one of the set I specified.

Agreed. This should, at the very least, be fixed in the way you indicate.

That said, a more general question would be: should we include the
(numeric) interface index rather than e.g. a hardware-specific I-D?

By replacing the "Modified-EUI-64" with the interfaece index, we'd get a
cool feature: you can change the NIC, and that doesn't affect the
resulting IPv6 address.

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