Re: Re: LC comments on stable-privacy-addresses: Interface Index vs. name

Tim Chown wrote: > On 29 Apr 2013, at 20:39, Ray Hunter > wrote: > >> Christian Huitema wrote: The "problem" here is that don't have all the names/IDs we'd like. For example, using the MAC address as the Interface_ID would do for this purpose... but t

Re: LC comments on stable-privacy-addresses: Interface Index vs. name

On 29 Apr 2013, at 20:39, Ray Hunter wrote: > Christian Huitema wrote: >>> The "problem" here is that don't have all the names/IDs we'd like. For >>> example, using the MAC address as the Interface_ID would do for this >>> purpose... but the the IPv6 address is tied to the MAC address, and woul

Re: LC comments on stable-privacy-addresses: Interface Index vs. name

On 04/29/2013 07:04 PM, Doug Barton wrote: >>> Let's assume that >>> there are 2 broad categories that cover a statistically significant >>> percentage of the possible use cases, home and business. I don't see any >>> scenario where the home user would be benefited from stable privacy >>> addresses

Re: LC comments on stable-privacy-addresses: Interface Index vs. name

All, I just want everyone to be aware that I have stopped the publication process on this document and sent it back to the WG. There was significant feedback that I felt needed to be dealt with and that the resulting changes may alter the document significantly. The author and the docum

Re: LC comments on stable-privacy-addresses: Interface Index vs. name

On 04/29/2013 01:12 PM, Fernando Gont wrote: On 04/29/2013 05:00 PM, Doug Barton wrote: I only peripherally followed the early discussion about this topic (only so many hours in the day). I confess that I never "got" the need for this, but lots of people seemed enthusiastic about it, so I put it

Re: LC comments on stable-privacy-addresses: Interface Index vs. name

On 04/29/2013 05:00 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > I only peripherally followed the early discussion about this topic (only > so many hours in the day). I confess that I never "got" the need for > this, but lots of people seemed enthusiastic about it, so I put it in > the category of things to figure out

Re: LC comments on stable-privacy-addresses: Interface Index vs. name

On 04/29/2013 12:39 PM, Ray Hunter wrote: Christian Huitema wrote: The "problem" here is that don't have all the names/IDs we'd like. For example, using the MAC address as the Interface_ID would do for this purpose... but the the IPv6 address is tied to the MAC address, and would change upon r

Re: LC comments on stable-privacy-addresses: Interface Index vs. name

On 04/29/2013 12:03 PM, Christian Huitema wrote: >> The "problem" here is that don't have all the names/IDs we'd like. >> For example, using the MAC address as the Interface_ID would do for >> this purpose... but the the IPv6 address is tied to the MAC >> address, and would change upon replacement

Re: RE: LC comments on stable-privacy-addresses: Interface Index vs. name

Christian Huitema wrote: >> The "problem" here is that don't have all the names/IDs we'd like. For >> example, using the MAC address as the Interface_ID would do for this >> purpose... but the the IPv6 address is tied to the MAC address, and would >> change upon replacement of the NIC (which is

RE: LC comments on stable-privacy-addresses: Interface Index vs. name

> The "problem" here is that don't have all the names/IDs we'd like. For > example, using the MAC address as the Interface_ID would do for this > purpose... but the the IPv6 address is tied to the MAC address, and would > change upon replacement of the NIC (which is generally undesirable)... Un

Re: LC comments on stable-privacy-addresses: Interface Index vs. name

On 04/29/2013 01:13 AM, Mark Smith wrote: >>> This gets a bit interesting when thinking about the USB NIC >>> situation. Plugging the USB NIC into different USB slots would >>> change the interface ID if the slot is used to assign it a >>> persistent interface ID. >> >> I'd argue that this would

Re: LC comments on stable-privacy-addresses: Interface Index vs. name

On 29/04/2013 16:13, Mark Smith wrote: ... > I don't think it is specifically defined. For example, I > understand Linux just uses an incrementing allocation > counter, which is why the order of interface initialisation > or insertion matters. On routers etc., this sort of scheme > also seems to be

Re: LC comments on stable-privacy-addresses: Interface Index vs. name

gt; Sent: Friday, 26 April 2013 9:01 AM > Subject: Re: LC comments on stable-privacy-addresses: Interface Index vs. name > > Hi, Mark, > > Thanks so much for your feedback! -- Please find my comments in-line > > On 04/25/2013 06:13 PM, Mark Smith wrote: >> >&

Re: LC comments on stable-privacy-addresses: Interface Index vs. name

Original Message - From: "Fernando Gont" To: <6...@ietf.org> Cc: <6man-cha...@tools.ietf.org>; "RJ Atkinson" ; "Brian Haberman" ; "t.petch" Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 3:01 PM > Folks, > > During IETF LC, a couple of folks noted that Interface Indexes might not > be stable. > > I add

Re: LC comments on stable-privacy-addresses: Interface Index vs. name

> Mark Smith > 25 April 2013 23:13 > Hi Fernando, > > > > I think listing those desired properties would be useful, and then > describing examples of actual interface identifiers that would qualify > if available e.g., persistent ifindex values or persistent inter

Re: LC comments on stable-privacy-addresses: Interface Index vs. name

Hi, Mark, Thanks so much for your feedback! -- Please find my comments in-line On 04/25/2013 06:13 PM, Mark Smith wrote: > > I think listing those desired properties would be useful, and then > describing examples of actual interface identifiers that would > qualify if available e.g., persis

Re: LC comments on stable-privacy-addresses: Interface Index vs. name

y, 26 April 2013 2:47 AM >Subject: Re: LC comments on stable-privacy-addresses: Interface Index vs. name > > >Hi, Ray, > >On 04/25/2013 11:21 AM, Ray Hunter wrote: >> Since both "Interface_Index" and "Interface name" are anyway both >> implementat

Re: LC comments on stable-privacy-addresses: Interface Index vs. name

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 Inte

Re: LC comments on stable-privacy-addresses: Interface Index vs. name

Hi, Ray, On 04/25/2013 11:21 AM, Ray Hunter wrote: > Since both "Interface_Index" and "Interface name" are anyway both > implementation dependent, why would you need to precisely standardise > the exact meaning, or the exact source of the information? AFAICS this > wouldn't significantly affect in

Re: LC comments on stable-privacy-addresses: Interface Index vs. name

Fernando Gont wrote: > Folks, > > During IETF LC, a couple of folks noted that Interface Indexes might not > be stable. > > I added some text on the subject to my working copy (mostly based on the > discussion with Brian Haberman and Mark Smith), but the issue came up > again (Tom Petch commented

RE: LC comments on stable-privacy-addresses: Interface Index vs. name

> 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

LC comments on stable-privacy-addresses: Interface Index vs. name

Folks, During IETF LC, a couple of folks noted that Interface Indexes might not be stable. I added some text on the subject to my working copy (mostly based on the discussion with Brian Haberman and Mark Smith), but the issue came up again (Tom Petch commented on the subject). Since the raison d