Re: Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-16: (with DISCUSS)

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

On 1/23/14 6:47 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 01/23/2014 08:39 AM, Brian Haberman wrote:
> 
>> On 1/22/14 5:13 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
>>>> All this point is making is that there are a variety of ways
>>>> of getting this behavior and DNA provided guidance on one way
>>>> to do that.  The simple solution is to refer to those RFCs 
>>>> (informatively) and point out that they describe one way to
>>>> track which addresses are associated with particular networks.
>>>> This has the benefit of not forcing re-calculation of the hash
>>>> on every (re-)connect.
>>>
>>> I have no issues with that (I misinterpreted where you were
>>> going, it seems).
>>>
>>> So I guess one could add something along the lines of: "A node
>>> may use Simple DNA [RFC6059] to reuse a previously-configured 
>>> address for this network without the need to recompute the 
>>> Interface-ID with the scheme specified in this document."
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
> 
>> That would work for me.  We can wait to see if any of AD has an
>> issue with this text.
> 
> My understanding of the discussion with Thomas is that one could
> rather use the SDNA stuff as a possible source for the Network_ID
> parameter. That' be great. (I proposed some text to Thomas, and I'm
> waiting for his response).
> 
> Regarding use of DNA as proposed in the suggested paragraph above, I
> have no issues with it, although it seems orthogonal and out of scope
> *here*. -- i.e., such note might make more sense for the other
> document that has just been adopted. This one is about what to do when
> you have already "decided" that you cannot reuse the
> previously-assigned address.
> 
> Thoughts?

Given the concerns raised by Stephen about storing addresses, I can see
where employing the DNA approach for the Network_ID is a reasonable
compromise.

Regards,
Brian