In your letter dated Tue, 15 Mar 2011 20:27:32 +0100 you wrote: > >On 2011-03-15, at 19:27 , Philip Homburg wrote: > >> If you just need stable addresses, then you can also put your own = >random >> numbers in DHCP.=20 > >I just thought it would be nice if DHCP, manual configuration and = >stateless auto-configuration can always play together nicely within the = >same network, even when privacy extension is being used. Without privacy = >extension this is pretty much the case, except for MAC address conflicts = >like you mentioned previously, but when privacy extension enters the = >game (and don't get me wrong, I think privacy extension is a good thing = >and it is important that such an extension exists) this is not = >guaranteed any longer.
What I was trying to say in the above quote is this: if you assign an interface identifier to a host like this: ::0CB5:C04C:F5FD:DCCA then there is no way that broken random number generator in a host will ever come up with that same value. So just put those random numbers in DHCPv6, forward and reverse DNS, etc. It doesn't really matter if a host uses both automatic configuration and DHCP. It just means that it has more IPv6 addresses, which no problem. And that reverse DNS may not work. Which may or may not be a problem. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
