On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Some RFCs (I know of at least 2, RFC2526 and RFC4214) reserve a set of
interface identifiers on all prefixes. These identifiers need to be excluded
when a node autoconfigures an address. This problem occurs with privacy
addresses but is equally applicable to other address assigment methods like
dhcpv6, cga etc. As Bernie suggested in a mail it would be good to maintain a
list of such identifiers. This is possible by either listing the currently
assigned IIDs in a document, or by creating an IANA registry. The former is
useful if there will be no such allocations in the future and the later is
useful if there will be future allocations. I have written a draft regarding
this and I was wondering if the wg considers this to be useful work worth
pursuing. I would also like to know if there are any other RFCs/drafts which
depend on using specific IIDs.
I only now read draft-krishnan-ipv6-reserved-iids-00.txt.
I will note that the draft proposed establishing an IID registry, but
AFAICS doesn't specify that these must be excluded from
auto-configuration or other such functions. Or is such "exclude IIDs
listed in the registry" specification expected to happen in the
future, in revised protocol specifications?
That was a main open issue I saw in the (short) draft.
It would also have been useful if there had been more text to give
guidance to the designated expert on in which cases it would be OK to
accept a registration. As the draft cites 'exceptional
circumstances', maybe a higher bar (e.g., IETF consensus or Standards
action) would also be possible.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
