Re: [v6ops] Some questions on draft-rafiee-v6ops-iid-lifetime

["Hosnieh Rafiee" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Fred,
Thanks again.

> 
> Question for you. What is the interaction with draft-gont-6man-deprecate-
> eui64-based-addresses? In conversation with him there, you asked if he
> would be folding your draft into his and therefore making yours redundant.
> Does he plan to? If he does, it may be appropriate for you to become a co-
> author on that paper.

That conversation is nothing to do with  Iid-lifetime draft which  we
submitted to v6ops. It is about ra-privacy which I submitted to 6man. 
Ra-privacy has been active for some months and the content of this new
submitted draft, "deprecate EUI-64", is the same as some sections in
ra-privacy. They wanted to have an informational draft recommending all
operators to use stable addresses.  Since I was improving ra-privacy, there
was a discussion about this and since I had a section about "Not using
EUI-64 in general" in my draft. I said it can be just changing a sentence in
this section to recommend using stable addresses as a public address. I
guessed we agreed on that. But now I see otherwise! 
Since they didn't discuss this with me and just suddenly submit a draft and
used the content of ra-privacy, I just asked them whether they want to merge
this work with their draft. But it appears they ignored my message! 

I thought in IETF you try first to improve the existing drafts and then if
the existing draft does n't address what you plan to do, you would submit a
new draft, but not copy and paste the content and make it new draft.

> My sense, which could be completely incorrect, is that the exact value of
the
> IID isn't all that interesting to most operators, as once it is in use
nobody
> really cares how it was chosen. Duplicate IIDs in use would be a problem,
so
> DAD is important. The means by which it is assigned is interesting (some
> operators require SLAAC, some use DHCPv6 but permit SLAAC, some require
> DHCPv6, and some assign IIDs to their servers or to routers for BGP
> purposes). Duplicate IIDs in use would be a problem, so DAD is important
> operationally if SLAAC is in use, and in DSL and Cable networks the
behavior
> of DAD in their transmission systems is "interesting". The number of
> addresses that are in actual use at a given time (and therefore neighbor
slots
> that are in use) is operationally interesting in that it affects and is
affected by
> table capacity, and can therefore be an attack vector. The bits in the IID
and
> the mechanism by which they are generated is, however, very important to
> 6man, which defines SLAAC. From that perspective, the paper may be of
> interest in 6man.
> 
> I'm looking, as always, for operational feedback on the list. But that's
my
> initial thought.


Iid- Lifetime is not about how you generate IID. It doesn't matter for it.
It only recommends a lifetime for the IID. You can use different approach to
generate your IID but at the same time care about your privacy.

Thanks again,

-----------smile----------
Hosnieh
. success is a journey, not a destination..
You cannot change your destination overnight, but you can change your
direction ... Focus on the journey