Re: [v6ops] some feedback on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-addr-registration-01

[Sheng Jiang <[e-mail]>]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>Of joel jaeggli
>Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 2:50 PM
>To: [e-mail]; IPv6 Ops WG;
>[e-mail]
>Subject: [v6ops] some feedback on
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-addr-registration-01
>
>I took a look at this draft since it was also presented in v6ops...
>
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-addr-registration-01
>
>There's a couple issues that are quite striking. I kind of concur with
>Fred  Baker that the most appropiate method for tracking l2/l3 binding
>for address identification is probably more akin to syslog.
>
>That is, since you don't really trust the hosts, having a switch/router,
>simply sysloging all new NDP cache entries pretty much achives the same
>thing execept with a lot less signaling.
>
>If a strong assertion of L2 identity in support of l2/l3 bindings is
>required 802.1x or the wireless equivalanet seems appropiate, e.g. it's
>what we do today.
>
>Availing oneself of a dhcp/ra option entails a lot of signaling for what
>is likely a relatively ephemeral port (windows machines and macs
>registering privacy addresses for example). specifiying a binding
>lifetime seems of limited utility since the host will probably discard
>the address long before the lifetime expires if it's sufficently long
>enough to allow for long lived connections using that address.
>_______________________________________________
>v6ops mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops