On 29 Apr 2013, at 20:39, Ray Hunter v6...@globis.net 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
Tim Chown wrote:
On 29 Apr 2013, at 20:39, Ray Hunter v6...@globis.net
mailto:v6...@globis.net 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
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 be a desirable
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)...
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 generally
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 of the
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
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
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
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
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 beyond what
Atkinson rja.li...@gmail.com; t.petch
daedu...@btconnect.com
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
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
Mark Smith mailto:markzzzsm...@yahoo.com.au
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 interface
Original Message -
From: Fernando Gont fg...@si6networks.com
To: 6...@ietf.org
Cc: 6man-cha...@tools.ietf.org; RJ Atkinson rja.li...@gmail.com;
Brian Haberman br...@innovationslab.net; t.petch
daedu...@btconnect.com
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 3:01 PM
Folks,
During IETF LC, a
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
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 inter-op,
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
daedu...@btconnect.com
Sent: Friday, 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
implementation dependent, why would you need
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.,
20 matches
Mail list logo
