Re: Consensus call on adopting: <draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01>

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

On 13 Apr 2012, at 08:14, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> On 2012-04-12 22:28, Bob Hinden wrote:
>> All,
>> 
>> This is a consensus call on adopting:
>> 
>>    Title     : A method for Generating Stable Privacy-Enhanced Addresses with
>>                IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)
>>    Author(s) : Fernando Gont
>>    Filename  : draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01
>>    Pages     : 15
>>    Date      : 2012-12-31
>> 
>>    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01
>> 
>> as a 6MAN working group document.  Please state your opinion, positive
>> or negative, on the mailing list or to the chairs.  This consensus call
>> will end on April 26, 2012.
> 
> Yes to adoption. Karl Auer's points all need discussion, and I think
> we also need to consider the impact on 3484bis.

Yes, let's adopt.

Personally I think a different name for these types of addresses would be more appropriate, to avoid confusion with RFC4941 Privacy Extensions.  If I understand it correctly, essentially what you are defining is randomised stable-per-prefix public interface identifiers, but that's not a catchy term :)

On 3484bis, if stable privacy addresses are alternative public (not temporary) identifiers for hosts then is there anything more to say?  What impact are you considering Brian, other than would exist if two other public addresses existed on an interface?

Note that RFC4941 temporary addresses can also be stable, in that they do not change if the host stays on the same network; the specification only says identifiers SHOULD be regenerated at some defined interval.  

Finally, it would be interesting to know what algorithm Windows uses to generate its identifiers; they are randomised, public and stable.  I had thought they were based on the prefix, but Fernando's tests suggest not. 

Tim