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

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

Lorenzo,

> On Jan 11, 2017, at 9:21 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:40 AM, Bob Hinden <[e-mail]> wrote:
>    It is not recommended that Interface Identifiers for an Ethernet
>    interface be based on IEEE MAC-layer addresses.
> 
> Please include the word "stable" in this sentence. (See below.)

I agree, this is consistent with draft-ietf-6man-default-iids.

>    Earlier versions of
>    this document described a method of forming interface identifiers
>    derived from IEEE MAC-layer addresses called Modified EUI-64 format.
>    This is described in Appendix A of [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc4291bis] and is
>    no longer recommended.
> 
> Based on my reading of draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16 , it's not correct to say that this approach is "not recommended". This approach is not recommended for use with stable MAC addresses, but there is no recommendation against using it for non-stable MAC addresses. We do recommended that nodes use RFC7217 addresses by default, but only if the node wishes to create stable addresses, and there is no requirement that a node do so.

Would it be better to say (incorporating the change above):

   It is not recommended that Interface Identifiers for an Ethernet
   interface be based on stable IEEE MAC-layer addresses.  Earlier versions of
   this document described a method of forming interface identifiers
   derived from stable IEEE MAC-layer addresses called Modified EUI-64 format.
   This is described in Appendix A of [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc4291bis] and is
   no longer recommended.

That is, add “stable”.

Would it then make sense to be explicit to add a new sentence like:

   This approach may be used to create Interface Identifiers based on non-stable (e.g.,
   random) IEEE Mac-layer addresses.

with a reference to the appropriate IEEE specification.

Thanks,
Bob