Re: Reserved interface identifier registry

Hi Bernie,
   I will make the change to privacy-addrs in AUTH48.

Thanks
Suresh

Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> I think we concluded that this registry was not necessary?
> 
> I'm not sure what will happen to draft-ietf-ipv6-privacy-addrs-v2-05.txt
> when it becomes an RFC. Hopefully some change will occur to bullet 4 in
> sectin 3.2.1:
> 
> 3.2.1.  When Stable Storage Is Present
> 
> ...
> 
>    4.  Compare the generated identifier against a list of reserved
>        interface identifiers and to those already assigned to an address
>        on the local device.  In the event that an unacceptable
>        identifier has been generated, the node MUST restart the process
>        at step 1 above, using the right-most 64 bits of the MD5 digest
>        obtained in step 2 in place of the history value in step 1. 
> 
> To remove this text about comparing against a list of reserved IIDs.
> This was what caused my initial query as this draft doesn't indicate
> what this list of reserved identifiers is.
> 
> - Bernie
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas@netcore.fi] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 3:32 AM
> To: Suresh Krishnan
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Reserved interface identifier registry
> 
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>>  Some RFCs (I know of at least 2, RFC2526 and RFC4214) reserve a set
> of 
>> interface identifiers on all prefixes. These identifiers need to be
> excluded 
>> when a node autoconfigures an address. This problem occurs with
> privacy 
>> addresses but is equally applicable to other address assigment methods
> like 
>> dhcpv6, cga etc. As Bernie suggested in a mail it would be good to
> maintain a 
>> list of such identifiers. This is possible by either listing the
> currently 
>> assigned IIDs in a document, or by creating an IANA registry. The
> former is 
>> useful if there will be no such allocations in the future and the
> later is 
>> useful if there will be future allocations. I have written a draft
> regarding 
>> this and I was wondering if the wg considers this to be useful work
> worth 
>> pursuing. I would also like to know if there are any other RFCs/drafts
> which 
>> depend on using specific IIDs.
> 
> I only now read draft-krishnan-ipv6-reserved-iids-00.txt.
> 
> I will note that the draft proposed establishing an IID registry, but 
> AFAICS doesn't specify that these must be excluded from 
> auto-configuration or other such functions.  Or is such "exclude IIDs 
> listed in the registry" specification expected to happen in the 
> future, in revised protocol specifications?
> 
> That was a main open issue I saw in the (short) draft.
> 
> It would also have been useful if there had been more text to give 
> guidance to the designated expert on in which cases it would be OK to 
> accept a registration.  As the draft cites 'exceptional 
> circumstances', maybe a higher bar (e.g., IETF consensus or Standards 
> action) would also be possible.
> 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------