IETF Logo Mail Archive

答复: Re: Comments on <draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01>

zhou.sujing@zte.com.cn Wed, 18 April 2012 05:03 UTC

Return-Path: <zhou.sujing@zte.com.cn>
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 2D76721F85A4; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 22:03:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -94.789
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-94.789 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.999, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 0xPUCObn6esx; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 22:03:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn [95.130.199.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F96E21F8484; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 22:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.30.17.100] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 286202306338276; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 12:24:04 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.30.3.21] by [192.168.168.16] with StormMail ESMTP id 53047.3804161470; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:02:48 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse02.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id q3I52eWr092144; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:02:40 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhou.sujing@zte.com.cn)
In-Reply-To: <4F8E4236.6030601@si6networks.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Subject: 答复: Re: Comments on <draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007
Message-ID: <OF8A62C88C.E85DBAFA-ON482579E4.001AA5FC-482579E4.001BBC87@zte.com.cn>
From: zhou.sujing@zte.com.cn
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:02:33 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2012-04-18 13:02:42, Serialize complete at 2012-04-18 13:02:42
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 001BBC87482579E4_="
X-MAIL: mse02.zte.com.cn q3I52eWr092144
Cc: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org, IETF IPv6 <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: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 05:03:12 -0000

Regards~~~

-Sujing Zhou

ipv6-bounces@ietf.org 写于 2012-04-18 12:25:26:

> Hi, Karl,
> 
> On 04/17/2012 09:58 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> > A DHCPv6 server that allocates addresses linearly would be better 
fixed
> > not to do so, than to go to the trouble of implementing stable 
addresses
> > a la Gont.
> 
> Not sure what you mean. -- Having the DHCPv6 server implement
> draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses might be interesting such that
> stable addresses are leased to nodes state-lessly.
> 

Will the DHCP server use the same secret key in computation of so many 
random interface identifiers?
If so, the computation of RID may need to be modified, because there is 
little left to tweak (the only difference between 
clients is Modified_EUI64) in case address collision occurs.
and have you ever thought of refreshing the secret key in SLAAC?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email