IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au> Sat, 14 April 2012 13:02 UTC

Return-Path: <kauer@biplane.com.au>
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 03BFD21F8496 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 06:02:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6]
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 YrEdQEnYk6eV for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 06:02:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net (unknown [IPv6:2001:44b8:8060:ff02:300:1:2:6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0DCF21F8452 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 06:02:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApMBAHd0iU+WZX+7/2dsb2JhbAANN4VmsjQBAQEDASNbCwsYKgICVxmICaYTklKOJYIMgRgEoSiHcw
Received: from eth4284.nsw.adsl.internode.on.net (HELO [192.168.1.205]) ([150.101.127.187]) by ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 14 Apr 2012 22:32:17 +0930
Subject: Re: Feedback on draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01
From: Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <4F8967F3.50707@si6networks.com>
References: <E7607B61-9889-43A9-B86B-133BD4238BA2@gmail.com> <1334276068.3945.408.camel@karl> <4F882A44.3080305@si6networks.com> <1334363774.3945.541.camel@karl> <4F8967F3.50707@si6networks.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-Todxeul6Fv7hAJDbmhO4"
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 23:02:14 +1000
Message-ID: <1334408534.3945.631.camel@karl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3
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: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 13:02:22 -0000

On Sat, 2012-04-14 at 14:05 +0200, Fernando Gont wrote:
> Shouldn't it be specified with RFC 2119 language?

The first para just described intent. The others used 2119 language.

> Yep. I think it would be better to have all IIDs generated with the
> algorithm.

It may be better, but it is a change to a massively widely-implemented
mechanism. I suggest therefore

   "IPv6 implementations conforming to this specification MUST NOT
    use Modified-IEEE format interface identifiers [see 4291 Appendix
    A] for any purpose EXCEPT THAT link local addresses MAY (but SHOULD
    NOT) be generated using Modified-IEEE format interface identifiers.

> Sorry, what you put in the key would be used for setting the IID??

Yep - if I set the flag and put "::53" in the key, then the address
generated will be prefix::53. But this is just an off-topic idea and not
essential to your draft.

> What's the use case you have in mind?

Don't have one :-)

Regards, K.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer

GPG fingerprint: AE1D 4868 6420 AD9A A698 5251 1699 7B78 4EEE 6017
Old fingerprint: DA41 51B1 1481 16E1 F7E2 B2E9 3007 14ED 5736 F687

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email