IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: 64bit MAC addresses and SLAAC

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com> Wed, 17 June 2020 16:52 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.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 4FB833A0A8B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 09:52:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.622
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.276, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 lwFnoaCthzxG for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 09:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B7BC3A0A8C for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 09:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #157) id m1jlbI5-0000JqC; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 18:51:57 +0200
Message-Id: <m1jlbI5-0000JqC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: 64bit MAC addresses and SLAAC
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <e8a25961-5ac9-d35e-77dd-bf86f45cd077@gmail.com> <a17ae9f3-001c-07f6-84f9-a0ca583e6a00@gmail.com> <7AE5B6D0-AB01-4077-A9EF-5BD86F428681@gmail.com> <7a3b839f-099e-8fd3-35a2-4625df3c369e@gmail.com> <76e8bd7a-4333-480f-de0f-dcc775418739@si6networks.com> <79d494caa7874696b787aadb80cc322b@boeing.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 17 Jun 2020 16:17:46 +0000 ." <79d494caa7874696b787aadb80cc322b@boeing.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 18:51:53 +0200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/wKsLrD1LGx90VDra2XfCbqu_rwA>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 16:52:06 -0000

> This is not intended to challenge the non-use of MAC addresses in
> Interface Identifiers per your documents, but just to say that in
> some environments the randomization and constant changing of IP
> addresses may actual run counter to operational objectives.

It should be easy enough to write a document that defines a stable pseudo
random IID.

I wonder however about the political implications of having an IETF document
that argues for embedding tracking identifers in a low level, core IETF
protocol.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email