Hi, Christian, Thanks so much for your feedback! Please find my comments in-line...
On 04/25/2013 10:41 AM, Christian Huitema wrote: >> My take would be to replace "Interface Index" in the expression >> with an abstract "Interface_ID", and then explain that >> "Interfae_ID" can be either the Interface Index or the Interface >> name, and include some of the text above (explaining why an >> implementation might want to include one or the other -- i.e., if >> your Interface Indexes are stable, use them. Else use the Interface >> name). > > I suggest that you just leave the choice to developers, based on the > tradeoffs necessary for their particular implementations. Yep, that's what I meant above. > I can see > cases where I would just use the MAC address, and others where the > proper tradeoff is to use nothing at all. I believe that using the MAC address would break the useful property that addresses do not depend on the underlying link-layer address (i.e., the IPv6 address does not change when the NIC is replaced). -- see my response to Ray Hunter. > Just explain what the possible objectives are: > > 1) Stable address until reboot, versus forever > > 2) Stable address as long as the same MAC is used, versus stable > address even if cards are swapped > > 3) System design for multi homing, versus system design with just one > network connection We really need: * Stable forever * Stable even if cards are swapped * Multi-homing is *not* a special case In particular, I'd really want people to know what they get when they use this. Cheers, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
