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

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Sun, 15 April 2012 02:00 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
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 4E48221F8674 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 19:00:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.742
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.742 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.143, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 JWDa1SqRk-Ue for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 19:00:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-1.cisco.com (mtv-iport-1.cisco.com [173.36.130.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0D5221F865E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 19:00:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; l=934; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1334455217; x=1335664817; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=r2PGdQRhiNPXoD/YOSuM9ItdYlys4erhWYNGkp0l4Qc=; b=L3Teb2Dsqj5HdDeSaHjFoPH/2leOXGBZCTHBhko42Lg7TRepV87zuSbJ MhmfNuqEHep9gWtlHn2AmmsA95dYTT+saBJpBn0mB0z4N9RQdcx7E4f+J zl56zkdfqultKZjpA4GrOCgefLkdX59e2iJ8I3wo5ZvCZpXWHTcUxmI9B c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAI0rik+rRDoJ/2dsb2JhbABEtQuBB4IJAQEBAwESASc/EAtGVwY1h2cEmQafDJBmYwSIWo0ThXKIWoFpgwc
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,424,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="37481393"
Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by mtv-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Apr 2012 02:00:17 +0000
Received: from stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com [10.32.244.218]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q3F20GCJ018069; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 02:00:17 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com (PGP Universal service); Sat, 14 Apr 2012 19:00:17 -0700
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com on Sat, 14 Apr 2012 19:00:17 -0700
Subject: Re: Feedback on draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C91E67751B1EFF41B857DE2FE1F68ABA03CFD4B7@TK5EX14MBXC274.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 18:59:36 -0700
Message-Id: <923A007D-4D00-4905-939E-342BD26C57DE@cisco.com>
References: <E7607B61-9889-43A9-B86B-133BD4238BA2@gmail.com> <1334276068.3945.408.camel@karl> <4F882A44.3080305@si6networks.com> <1334363774.3945.541.camel@karl> <CAAuHL_BCv2q=hDjTLmiviLoRRTbbyU+aSSQ0ETbDDQk==YfmLQ@mail.gmail.com> <C5B723A8-8A24-46BD-94E5-0BA2D8CCB460@cisco.com> <4F89DEE7.1080205@si6networks.com> <C91E67751B1EFF41B857DE2FE1F68ABA03CFD484@TK5EX14MBXC274.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <8C04B19A-6E88-4544-8827-13BB4D672CFE@cisco.com> <C91E67751B1EFF41B857DE2FE1F68ABA03CFD4B7@TK5EX14MBXC274.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@microsoft.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, "ipv6@ietf.org 6man" <ipv6@ietf.org>
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: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 02:00:18 -0000

On Apr 14, 2012, at 5:07 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:

>> As I read it, section three item one calls for the use of the EUI-64 in use on the interface, which presumes that the 
>> interface is an IEEE 802 LAN. There are other interface types. I'd like to see that widened to a number *such*as*
>> one of the set I specified.
> 
> You don't really need the EUI64 for the proposal to work. We could just as well completely omit the field, and simply use the EUI64 as an optional seed for the random number. But there are two advantages:
> 
> * Using some form of interface ID allows the host to keep just one random seed for all interfaces, which is nice.
> * using EUI64 in a context like SEND makes spoofing a little bit harder.

I have no problem with the EUI-64 if one exists. I'm pointing out that not all interfaces have one. They might have an E.164 or E.212 number, or other things.