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

"Hosnieh Rafiee" <> Sat, 26 October 2013 09:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6159511E8175 for <>; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 02:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mPe689kWVyYX for <>; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 02:34:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CAEA11E818F for <>; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 02:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kopoli ( []) by (node=mrus4) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MbOgO-1VJZKy1qIW-00JQkO; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 05:34:26 -0400
From: "Hosnieh Rafiee" <>
To: "'Fred Baker \(fred\)'" <>
References: <> <008901ced1d5$434e5790$c9eb06b0$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 11:34:16 +0200
Message-ID: <001f01ced22e$8f08a4c0$ad19ee40$>
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:,,, 'Erik Nordmark' <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Some questions on draft-rafiee-v6ops-iid-lifetime
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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
> IID isn't all that interesting to most operators, as once it is in use
> really cares how it was chosen. Duplicate IIDs in use would be a problem,
> 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
> of DAD in their transmission systems is "interesting". The number of
> addresses that are in actual use at a given time (and therefore neighbor
> 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
> 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
> 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,

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