IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids> update to rfc2464bis

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-3@u-1.phicoh.com> Thu, 12 January 2017 12:25 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-bF054DD66@u-1.phicoh.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 B8A181295CB for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 04:25:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id abUcmuf9IuyP for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 04:25:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [130.37.15.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09C261295C5 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 04:25:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net ([::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #127) id m1cReRb-0000HKC; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:25:27 +0100
Message-Id: <m1cReRb-0000HKC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids> update to rfc2464bis
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-3@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-bF054DD66@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <1E7F90AC-79BB-49BE-B397-EC829EA95AA4@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0O6gnXZc3qEY7bqkBYu-sx1_erwum2DRwpe+Vv+jmdiw@mail.gmail.com> <7456833d-aa3f-d368-6041-cfdc1ac95f6f@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr1dQF7Cg0mppZVcSXC15pue_y1Qb-GugKY+G8u-dRyJtg@mail.gmail.com> <89fc8838-f6cd-1647-8468-1c8c11466aff@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr2z22ZX85ywAcqobbHZ20Kx4VvFhEmzJnSG_0hQBLLvyw@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:18:56 +0100 ."
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:25:27 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/AFD1ikshxesuQBc-l_DhWZ48fiU>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:25:32 -0000

[Somehow I managed to send this v6ops first :-(]

>> So far, the only two standardized algorithms for generating IIDs with
>> SLAAC are RFC7217, RFC4941, and traditional slaac (modified eui-64).
>> Clearly, you can hack your code and commit it. Being that this is
>> standardization body, I would expect that we're agree on standardizing
>> reasonable approaches, and calling bad approaches as such.
>>
>
>Sure. If you can find rough consensus to say all other methods of
>generating IIDs are bad and should not be used, the IETF will publish a
>document saying that. My bet is that you won't.

Personally I'd say "Modified EUI-64 SHOULD NOT be used on new installations.
Modified EUI-64 SHOULD be implemented"

I think modified EUI-64 with stable MAC addresses has lots of interesting use
cases. And it is upto the admin to determine what is the right thing to do.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email