Re: Consensus call on adopting: <draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01>

Fernando Gont <> Wed, 09 May 2012 23:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEC0421F847E for <>; Wed, 9 May 2012 16:50:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.299
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u5RAjnZNXtFb for <>; Wed, 9 May 2012 16:50:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3218A21F847D for <>; Wed, 9 May 2012 16:50:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yhq56 with SMTP id 56so1082004yhq.31 for <>; Wed, 09 May 2012 16:50:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=h9JNHrGH7znBl2Axf3nGGwzXHSn5opSM8+uZum4h1iE=; b=K3feOLFxgVPGX/xj3ZBtQkq6Zvj6uTMCmidtN+aAJxpcHzugiwPGp7qXJW07BjoryD F7jUTkW9NJF5XCfmHoM18FsrhIrh/zDN321TDE4aGz4tIdTveT2a6unRUU/EIrBmOa01 aiWOrtN9PLT3OFV5Zi438uu2rQXv+d0VCwB9Fp/fCkUlZLKXend2LiecHzvB21iIramb fEUp5P3y0eLe4nez+fwl8AZgXw7qc7JttcpL7KGXmU3QYh92550AKfvtFwyE9WM2GlDP zApX+b4Z3b/8u0hRJuUKt2Oy9gdJ2xgOBJ/yijYUPq0IY/Z4z3EJNLMFOPtgG/W0MTeW 6aag==
Received: by with SMTP id v66mr2510849yhk.56.1336607449791; Wed, 09 May 2012 16:50:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPS id a30sm18715309yhe.18.2012. (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 09 May 2012 16:50:48 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Fernando Gont <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 20:50:45 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ole Trøan <>
Subject: Re: Consensus call on adopting: <draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5pre
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: 6man Chairs <>, IPv6 WG Mailing List <>,
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 23:50:51 -0000

Hi, Ole,

On 05/08/2012 02:42 PM, Ole Trøan wrote:
> The discussion brought up some issues that we will work with the author to
> resolve, in particular:
>  - The current draft is written to not allow the IETF to create derivative works.
>    This is incompatible with the IETF standards process.
>    See section 4 of

My understanding is that this is perfectly compatible with the IETF
standards process, as long as this restriction is removed before posting
as draft-ietf (for instance, I guess that's why it's allowed in the
first place). (this restriction will be removed in the upcoming
draft-ietf version, accordingly)

>  - The draft should not replace modified EUI-64 IIDs. It intents to provide an alternative to
>    IEEE MAC based modified EUI-64 IIDs.


>    The draft should not update RFC4191 and RFC4862

Agreed. However, it looks like this document should update RFC2464, though.


>  - The proposed mechanism has merit separately from the perceived "security" benefits,
>    because it creates modified EUI-64 Internet Identifiers that are not IEEE Mac based and
>    eliminates any concern about host tracking based on the IEEE MAC addresses.

I agree with this -- e.g. using the interface index in the hash leads to
stable NIC-independent addresses that don't vary even if you replace the
NIC. Is *this* what I should note in the next rev of the document?


Best regards,
Fernando Gont
e-mail: ||
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1