Tokenized addresses (was: Re: Feedback on draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01)

Fernando Gont <> Sat, 14 April 2012 20:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EA9821F85B1 for <>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 13:01:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.052
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.052 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.503, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=0.044]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YpgP+LrwxQm9 for <>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 13:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2a02:27f8:1025:18::232]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89EDC21F85A8 for <>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 13:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([] helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from <>) id 1SJ9A2-00028M-V6; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 22:01:31 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 17:48:16 +0200
From: Fernando Gont <>
Organization: SI6 Networks
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20120313 Thunderbird/3.1.20
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
Subject: Tokenized addresses (was: Re: Feedback on draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01)
References: <> <1334276068.3945.408.camel@karl> <> <1334363774.3945.541.camel@karl> <> <EMEW3|289e913e0066f2de615a1e1b85762bcbo3DBUc03tjc||> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Tim Chown <>, 6man Mailing List <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 20:01:36 -0000

On 04/14/2012 04:56 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Does this really help renumbering? e.g., if you have ACLs, they are
>> based on the whole IPv6 address, rather than on the IID...
> This is linked to the whole question of why people assign static
> addresses and how that interacts with renumbering. By getting rid
> of the MAC address (so that the server address doesn't depend on
> the network interface hardware) you are part way to static addresses,

At some point I played with the idea of including the interface-index
(rather than the MAC address in F() (in the algorithm in
draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses), which would still make the
resulting IIDs vary across networks as the host moves, but remain
constant in the presence of hardware changes.

> and one can imagine a prefix-renumbering mechanism that could handle
> this. Of course here we want an IID that is not only stable but is
> also well-known; servers don't get address privacy ;-).

Well, they *could* -- please see above.


Best regards,
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492