Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-11.txt>

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 19/05/2016 à 17:26, Lorenzo Colitti a écrit :
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Alexandre Petrescu
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>         This is really not hard to test in any hardware qualification lab.
>         Really, it isn't.
>
>
>     On the contrary, I think it is very hard to test a number to see whether
>     it's random - you need a very expensive lab and out-of-band info.
>
>
> Sure, but the same can be said of any RFC 7217 implementation. Doing
> blackbox testing of that sort of thing is hard.
>
> On the other hand, it is very easy to test that when the device
> disconnects/reconnects, the new connection has a different MAC address
> and a different IPv6 address. That's the most important thing.

I agree, it is easy to test the Interface ID changes or not upon 
reconnection (possibly delivered by ppp).

As an exception, this 'connection' tends to no longer be that simple 
yes/no state of earlier ppp.  These days an M2M module has multiple 
states of being connected.  Some-times it is connected yet it receives 
different prefixes in Router Advertisements.  In that case the privacy 
could be respected despite the IID being the same.

In these cases I noticed that the computer forms multiple different IIDs 
for each prefix in a received RA.  The computer ends with with about 10 
addresses in little time (depends on movement, and connectivity). 
That's not good either - too many addresses.

Alex