IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Thu, 23 January 2014 11:39 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B5471A044D; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 03:39:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id emGr1G9Kqqd2; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 03:39:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50FC01A041B; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 03:39:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5A6F880F3; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 03:39:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clemson.local (c-76-21-129-88.hsd1.md.comcast.net [76.21.129.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D93C6130003; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 03:39:08 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52E0FF5C.8050906@innovationslab.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 06:39:08 -0500
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-16: (with DISCUSS)
References: <20140122202434.30069.4084.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52E02EAD.1050009@si6networks.com> <52E03BAD.5050306@innovationslab.net> <52E04278.1000401@gont.com.ar>
In-Reply-To: <52E04278.1000401@gont.com.ar>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="80tkKUGtRGUSkRjsfooqStdU5eqIfLNKu"
Cc: 6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org, ipv6@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses@tools.ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 11:39:15 -0000


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.

Regards,
Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email