Re: Feedback on draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Sun, 15 April 2012 14:17 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 642F721F86E8 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 07:17:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.53
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.069]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cl+L3WHUBADU for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 07:17:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from srv01.bbserve.nl (unknown [IPv6:2a02:27f8:1025:18::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E582821F86CB for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 07:17:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [213.174.121.108] (helo=[192.168.101.204]) by srv01.bbserve.nl with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from <fgont@si6networks.com>) id 1SJQGu-0002Eb-O5; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 16:17:45 +0200
Message-ID: <4F8A322F.4040205@si6networks.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 04:27:59 +0200
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Organization: SI6 Networks
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120313 Thunderbird/3.1.20
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: Feedback on draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01
References: <E7607B61-9889-43A9-B86B-133BD4238BA2@gmail.com> <1334276068.3945.408.camel@karl> <4F882A44.3080305@si6networks.com> <1334363774.3945.541.camel@karl> <CAAuHL_BCv2q=hDjTLmiviLoRRTbbyU+aSSQ0ETbDDQk==YfmLQ@mail.gmail.com> <C5B723A8-8A24-46BD-94E5-0BA2D8CCB460@cisco.com> <4F89DEE7.1080205@si6networks.com> <C91E67751B1EFF41B857DE2FE1F68ABA03CFD484@TK5EX14MBXC274.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <8C04B19A-6E88-4544-8827-13BB4D672CFE@cisco.com> <C91E67751B1EFF41B857DE2FE1F68ABA03CFD4B7@TK5EX14MBXC274.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <C91E67751B1EFF41B857DE2FE1F68ABA03CFD4B7@TK5EX14MBXC274.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org 6man" <ipv6@ietf.org>, Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 14:17:54 -0000

On 04/15/2012 02:07 AM, Christian Huitema wrote:
> You don't really need the EUI64 for the proposal to work. We could
> just as well completely omit the field, and simply use the EUI64 as
> an optional seed for the random number. But there are two
> advantages:

You need to be able to differentiate the interfaces, or else two NICs
connected to the same subnet would produce the same IPIv6 address.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492