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

"Hosnieh Rafiee" <ietf@rozanak.com> Sat, 26 October 2013 09:34 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@rozanak.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6159511E8175 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 02:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mPe689kWVyYX for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 02:34:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CAEA11E818F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 02:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kopoli (g225045086.adsl.alicedsl.de [92.225.45.86]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus4) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MbOgO-1VJZKy1qIW-00JQkO; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 05:34:26 -0400
From: "Hosnieh Rafiee" <ietf@rozanak.com>
To: "'Fred Baker \(fred\)'" <fred@cisco.com>
References: <201310221245.r9MCj1n09532@ftpeng-update.cisco.com> <008901ced1d5$434e5790$c9eb06b0$@rozanak.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B7F4@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B7F4@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 11:34:16 +0200
Message-ID: <001f01ced22e$8f08a4c0$ad19ee40$@rozanak.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQGR/c6oFX+mvk/6gDLEuSjOLB4jLgJJTk5DATuMhfOaZDYRUA==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:UKAObx/mtzjdgXK2DnihLwDHDicYWOq/LytCcjUprqR EaEFsdHA3Ktz4VTj5qmZm7np7JZJP0Qkqs9+Jh2xokQDoakX6o eLHPg5GD9xfLHtlv7dhacjsGdEzo1rraT1PwJ1prYLRFUhNufu i2ClaWAlDNC61wLWT8xKTaK70gUIRCNatlC4OSlnYeD5HOh9I1 BUxCR+Zb9IPu/xeUT6aKY9N16uY296AyFQXvKy/FkGnkQfS3Fs kKu7JY79XdLlOR/pbUPc/0rihMP7TLeYyy59T7Lb12V76Wukeo XVRSlp2rJ1813V0xn6SHZ/51JFCw64BoVlZMn2hb80qHtsEPhI wCm0lWEVtYI+5G/OqKC0=
Cc: 6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org, v6ops@ietf.org, v6ops-chairs@tools.ietf.org, 'Erik Nordmark' <nordmark@sonic.net>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Some questions on draft-rafiee-v6ops-iid-lifetime
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 09:34:50 -0000

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