Re: Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way, that it might cause address conflicts?
Philip Homburg <pch-6man@u-1.phicoh.com> Tue, 15 March 2011 22:59 UTC
Return-Path: <pch-b6B5344D9@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 545C43A6EF8 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:59:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3OeoI0WZM3sd for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:59:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [130.37.15.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2B6C3A6EFA for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:59:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net ([127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #2) id m1PzdEY-0001NyC; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 00:00 +0100
Message-Id: <m1PzdEY-0001NyC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: Markus Hanauska <hanauska@equinux.de>
Subject: Re: Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way, that it might cause address conflicts?
From: Philip Homburg <pch-6man@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b6B5344D9@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <m1PzWdR-0001h0C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <8B79EE39-3033-4120-AB28-6C023C089F70@equinux.de> <m1PzYyK-0001NyC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <759E8F04-5899-451E-B838-F2FF35D5FB96@equinux.de>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 15 Mar 2011 20:27:32 +0100 ." <759E8F04-5899-451E-B838-F2FF35D5FB96@equinux.de>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 00:00:53 +0100
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 22:59:40 -0000
In your letter dated Tue, 15 Mar 2011 20:27:32 +0100 you wrote: > >On 2011-03-15, at 19:27 , Philip Homburg wrote: > >> If you just need stable addresses, then you can also put your own = >random >> numbers in DHCP.=20 > >I just thought it would be nice if DHCP, manual configuration and = >stateless auto-configuration can always play together nicely within the = >same network, even when privacy extension is being used. Without privacy = >extension this is pretty much the case, except for MAC address conflicts = >like you mentioned previously, but when privacy extension enters the = >game (and don't get me wrong, I think privacy extension is a good thing = >and it is important that such an extension exists) this is not = >guaranteed any longer. What I was trying to say in the above quote is this: if you assign an interface identifier to a host like this: ::0CB5:C04C:F5FD:DCCA then there is no way that broken random number generator in a host will ever come up with that same value. So just put those random numbers in DHCPv6, forward and reverse DNS, etc. It doesn't really matter if a host uses both automatic configuration and DHCP. It just means that it has more IPv6 addresses, which no problem. And that reverse DNS may not work. Which may or may not be a problem.
- Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way, tha… Markus Hanauska
- Re: Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way,… Philip Homburg
- Re: Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way,… james woodyatt
- Re: Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way,… Markus Hanauska
- Re: Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way,… Philip Homburg
- Re: Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way,… Markus Hanauska
- Re: Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way,… Markus Hanauska
- Re: Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way,… james woodyatt
- Re: Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way,… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way,… Philip Homburg
- Re: Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way,… Mohacsi Janos
- Re: Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way,… Markus Hanauska
- Re: Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way,… Sander Steffann
- Re: Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way,… Philip Homburg
- Re: Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way,… Markus Hanauska
- Re: Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way,… Mohacsi Janos
- Re: Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way,… Markus Hanauska
- Re: Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way,… Markus Hanauska
- Re: Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way,… Markus Hanauska
- Re: Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way,… Francis Dupont
- Re: Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way,… Brian Haley
- RE: Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way,… Hemant Singh (shemant)
- RE: Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way,… Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way,… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way,… Hemant Singh (shemant)
- RE: Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way,… Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way,… Timothy Winters