MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2a65f642-e339-8bb1-229a-be589d818635@si6networks.com>
References: <2a65f642-e339-8bb1-229a-be589d818635@si6networks.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 20:10:31 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr1uFp3mxZ5mVFJHTQYsuT4Q_Bf5953-nEJivhEgp9fwNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06: RFC4941 and comment on stable
 addresses
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c1245be9d1fec0546acef7f
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/92S8qY7eDECdI6Furs4c7JPmUfU>
Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@tools.ietf.org
Precedence: list

--94eb2c1245be9d1fec0546acef7f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 11:54 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
wrote:

> 1) The doc says:
> "  The details of forming interface identifiers are defined in other
>    specifications, such as "Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address
>    Autoconfiguration in IPv6" [RFC4941] or "A Method for Generating
>    Semantically Opaque Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address
>    Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)"[RFC7217]. "
>
> While the text is not really incorrect, this one being a bis document to
> move rfc4291 to full std, referencing RFC4941 as is has two problems:
>
>   1) It would change the current operating model, where nodes employ
>      stable addresses -- in which temp addresses are *additional*
>      (to stable addresses) and an optional feature
>

That text doesn't change anything. RFC4941 specifies that temporary
addresses are additional to "public" addresses.


>   2) Referenced "as is", it would seem that RFC4941 is an alternative
>      to stable addresses, but as already discussed on this list, RFC4941
>      is specified such that temporary addresses are generated in
>      addition to the stable ones.
>

The text doesn't imply that at all. It simply says that those are two ways
of generating IIDs, which they are.

--94eb2c1245be9d1fec0546acef7f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On S=
at, Jan 21, 2017 at 11:54 PM, Fernando Gont <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:fgont@si6networks.com" target=3D"_blank">fgont@si6networks.com</=
a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0=
 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">1) The doc says:<br>
&quot;=C2=A0 The details of forming interface identifiers are defined in ot=
her<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0specifications, such as &quot;Privacy Extensions for Stateless=
 Address<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Autoconfiguration in IPv6&quot; [RFC4941] or &quot;A Method fo=
r Generating<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Semantically Opaque Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless =
Address<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)&quot;[RFC7217]. &quot;<br>
<br>
While the text is not really incorrect, this one being a bis document to<br=
>
move rfc4291 to full std, referencing RFC4941 as is has two problems:<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 1) It would change the current operating model, where nodes employ<b=
r>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0stable addresses -- in which temp addresses are *additi=
onal*<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0(to stable addresses) and an optional feature<br></bloc=
kquote><div><br></div><div>That text doesn&#39;t change anything. RFC4941 s=
pecifies that temporary addresses are additional to &quot;public&quot; addr=
esses.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"mar=
gin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">=C2=A0 2) Refer=
enced &quot;as is&quot;, it would seem that RFC4941 is an alternative<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0to stable addresses, but as already discussed on this l=
ist, RFC4941<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0is specified such that temporary addresses are generate=
d in<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0addition to the stable ones.<br></blockquote><div><br><=
/div><div>The text doesn&#39;t imply that at all. It simply says that those=
 are two ways of generating IIDs, which they are.</div></div></div></div>

--94eb2c1245be9d1fec0546acef7f--