Hi Pekka,
> 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 pr
ry as this draft doesn't indicate
what this list of reserved identifiers is.
- Bernie
-Original Message-
From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 3:32 AM
To: Suresh Krishnan
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Reserved interface identifier registry
On T
al Message-
From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 3:32 AM
To: Suresh Krishnan
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Reserved interface identifier registry
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> Some RFCs (I know of at least 2, RFC2526 and RFC4214) res
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 appli
stian Huitema; Suresh Krishnan; Bernie Volz (volz)
Cc: Alexandru Petrescu; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Reserved interface identifier registry
To correct myself, we verified under Microsoft Windows Vista
that the ISATAP interface sets the "u" bit to 1 when the
node is configured with a
exandru Petrescu; ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Reserved interface identifier registry
>
> > Fred explained that ISATAP identifiers should really use the
> > global bit as well.
>
> Hmm; not exactly what I said, but in (RFC4214, Section 6.1),
> what if we were to
tion the individual/group bit, just the universal/local.
So, it is a bit unclear.
- Bernie
-Original Message-
From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 2:17 PM
To: Bernie Volz (volz)
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Reserved interface identifier regi
2:28 PM
To: 'Suresh Krishnan'
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Reserved interface identifier registry
Well, my interpretation is that EUI-64s always have the universal/local
bit set to universal. And, non-EUI-64's have the universal/local bit
"set" to local. For local ones, I a
Hi Bernie,
Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
4291 does mention it in Appendix A:
where "c" is the bits of the assigned company_id, "0" is the value of
the universal/local bit to indicate universal scope, "g" is
individual/group bit, and "m" is the bits of the manufacturer-
selected extensio
t: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 12:01 PM
To: Bernie Volz (volz)
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Reserved interface identifier registry
Hi Bernie,
> Instead of step 4, perhaps step 4 (or as part of 3) should state
> that the individual/group bit (bit 7) should be set to 0 to
> indiciate
Hi Christian,
Christian Huitema wrote:
As for anycast and multicast, these addresses supposedly set the "group" bit in
the identifiers -- and if they don't they really should, since the L2 transmission is
multicast. Setting the G bit differentiates these addresses from RFC3041 addresses.
Ag
Hi Bernie,
Instead of step 4, perhaps step 4 (or as part of 3) should state
> that the individual/group bit (bit 7) should be set to 0 to
> indiciate individual (unless a group identifier were being generated,
which I don't think is the point of this draft). There is no mention
> of this bit
> Fred explained that ISATAP identifiers should really use the
> global bit as well.
Hmm; not exactly what I said, but in (RFC4214, Section 6.1),
what if we were to change:
"When the IPv4 address is known to be globally unique, the "u" bit
(universal/local) is set to 1; otherwise, the "u" b
ISATAP, but
if these are not an issue then that's great.
- Bernie
-Original Message-
From: Christian Huitema [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 7:56 PM
To: Suresh Krishnan; Bernie Volz (volz)
Cc: Alexandru Petrescu; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Reserved interface
> Hi Folks,
>I am attaching the draft I wrote regarding this. Can you please
> comment.
>
> Thanks
> Suresh
>
> Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> > Correct. That is NOT the issue. 3041 and 3041 bis use "randomly"
> > generated identifiers that are "local" (not "global" as mac-derived
> > identifier
ocal
identifiers always run the risk of having existing implementations
generate identifiers that may conflict.
- Bernie
-Original Message-
From: Christian Huitema [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 12:38 AM
To: Suresh Krishnan
Cc: Alexandru Petrescu; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: R
AM
> To: Christian Huitema; Suresh Krishnan
> Cc: Alexandru Petrescu; ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Reserved interface identifier registry
>
> Correct. That is NOT the issue. 3041 and 3041 bis use "randomly"
> generated identifiers that are "local" (not "glob
e-
From: Christian Huitema [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 12:38 AM
To: Suresh Krishnan
Cc: Alexandru Petrescu; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Reserved interface identifier registry
> Not really. You are assuming here that all IIDs are generated from MAC
> addresses
> Not really. You are assuming here that all IIDs are generated from MAC
> addresses. IIDs can be generated using other methods like CGA, Privacy
> Addresses etc. Hence reserving a range of MACs/OUIs is not sufficient.
Actually, the non Mac derived identifier include a bit that indicate
that "this
Aren't we putting the cart before the horse?
An IANA registry cannot be the only way to avoid collisions. An address
allocation program may take into account the state of the registry at
the time the code is written, but is seldom updated after that. Just
getting a number allocated by IANA will n
> > 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
> as
Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi Folks,
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
Suresh,
On Mar 21, 2007, at 1:42 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi Folks,
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 priva
[snip]
Hi Suresh/all,
>Hi Folks,
> 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 applicabl
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 5:21 AM
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Cc: Suresh Krishnan
Subject: Re: Reserved interface identifier registry
On Wednesday 21 March 2007 02:42:35 Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>Some RFCs (I know of at least 2, RFC2526 and RFC4214) reserve a set
> of int
On Wednesday 21 March 2007 02:42:35 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
Agree.
Regards,
Jordi
> De: "Durand, Alain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 04:00:46 -0400
> Para: Suresh Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Conversación: Reserved interface identifier registry
> Asun
I second the idea of an IANA registry for that. This would be
very useful and would provide be the easiest way to update that
list later.
- Alain.
> -Original Message-
> From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 1:43 AM
> To: ipv6@ietf.org
> Su
28 matches
Mail list logo
