It's also worth noting that the old presumption that MAC-based interface identifiers are normal and anything else is strange is obsolete. See http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-ug-06 which is approved in the RFC queue already and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-00 for a possible future recommendation.
These documents are mainly written with SLAAC in mind rather than DHCPv6, but I don't think that changes the principles. Personally I would avoid "sequential range like fd00::1, fd00::2" because it exposes you to easy scanning attacks. Random seems best except for servers. Regards Brian Carpenter On 02/02/2014 09:18, Henri Wahl wrote: > Hi, > >> 1) What's the pattern with which addresses are generated/assigned? Are >> they sequential (fc00::1, fc00::2, etc.)? Random? Something else? >> > We use our dhcpy6d (http://dhcpy6d.ifw-dresden.de) which allows 4 > different address categories: > - sequential range like fd00::1, fd00::2 > - completely random /64 like with privacy extensions: > fd00::3d2a:563f:76f1:d94f > - plain MAC address like fd00::2034:d4f1:439a > - some arbitrary id number given in client configuration like fd00::1, > fd00::3421 > > See http://dhcpy6d.ifw-dresden.de/documentation/config/addresses for > details. > This way one can hand out for example 2 addresses to clients, one random > privacy-aware global and one range or MAC-based for internal use. The > bad news is that only Windows 7+ is capable of handling more than one > address given by DHCPv6 out of the box. Linux has to be tweaked not to > use Network-Manager and MacOS fails completely - maybe would work with > some dhclient or dibbler-client. > >> 2) What about their stability? Is there any intent/mechanism for them to >> be as "stable" as possible? Or is it usual for hosts to get a new >> address for each lease? > > MAC and ID based addresses are of course stable, the range based ones > intend to be too and the random ones are regenerated whenever a lease > expired. > > Best regards > Henri > >