Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: I-D Action: draft-mishra-6man-variable-slaac-01.txt

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 6/11/20 07:18, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
> Hi Fernando,
> I said that "address resolution is not needed". Some simplified protocol is needed anyway.
> You have pointed to the manual address collision.

No. I pointed out that unless the IID is mandated to embed the 
underlying MAC address in all cases, you still need address resolution.

(and *that* has never been mandated).



> I could additionally say that the router should announce "seed" to obfuscate MAC addresses on this link (the same MAC should look different on different links).

Why should it?



> Additionally, RA is needed to centralized push of configuration information.
> But it is not "neighbor discovery", it is "link configuration".
> Well, it does not make sense to discuss - much smaller things has been rejected on 6man. It is really the revolution that I do believe make sense to push.
> 
> But yes, such revolution would need to keep subnet boundary at the exact position (like /64).

Sorry, I'm lost here.

There's no *technical* reason for the subnet boundary to be required to 
be fixed at /64.

/64 was only needed if one wanted to support IID generation based on 
embedding MAC addresses on link-layers with 64-bit MACs.

Once we got rid of recommending that IIDs be generated by embeding the 
underlying mac address (think RFC8064), the only reason for mandating a 
fixed subnet boundary is electro-political, *not* technical.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492