Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-05.txt

Hi Brian,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 10:47 AM
> To: Lorenzo Colitti; v6ops@ietf.org WG
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-05.txt
> 
> On 13/02/2016 06:25, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 6:19 PM, <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:
> >
> >>         Title           : Host address availability recommendations
> >>         Authors         : Lorenzo Colitti
> >>                           Vint Cerf
> >>                           Stuart Cheshire
> >>                           David Schinazi
> >>         Filename        : draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-05.txt
> >>
> >
> > New in this version:
> >
> >    1. Placed much less emphasis on DHCPv6 PD. It was never the intention to
> >    recommend DHCPv6 PD only;
> 
> And don't overlook that draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile is in IETF Last Call
> for another 2 days, including a strong recommendation against using IA_PD.

The abstract says:

   "Some DHCP options carry unique identifiers.  These identifiers can
   enable device tracking even if the device administrator takes care of
   randomizing other potential identifications like link-layer addresses
   or IPv6 addresses.  The anonymity profile is designed for clients
   that wish to remain anonymous to the visited network."

So, it appears to be only about clients that wish to remain anonymous.
But, in certain use cases (airplanes under air traffic control, enterprise
mobile device users, etc.) device tracking is very important. and IA_PD
is applicable.

Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

>    Brian
> 
> >    the intention was to recommend address
> >    provisioning mechanisms that provide plenty of addresses (e.g., by
> >    providing a prefix). However, some WG participants believed that that was
> >    the intent. The draft now recommends either "methods that allow the host to
> >    obtain more addresses autonomously" or a dedicated /64 per host, where the
> >    dedicated /64 per host can be obtained in several ways.
> >    2. Mention SLAAC with a dedicated /64 for every host as a way of
> >    providing plenty of addresses via SLAAC with simpler tracking than shared
> >    SLAAC.
> >    3. Slightly reworded the section on address tracking.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Lorenzo
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > v6ops mailing list
> > v6ops@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops