Overall, it seems to me this issue (if we want to handle it in normal
operation) is a matter of policy and beyond the scope of *default*
selection rule. For example, if we really want to mix addresses
configured vi DHCPv6 and addresses configured via SAAC, and want to
prefer (e.g.) the former to
(I've read the other messages in this thread, but I was not sure which
one is the most appropriate to follow up to, so I'm going to reply to
the original question...)
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:52:18 -0400,
> James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I've done quite a bit of searching over
Eliot Lear writes:
> Alain,
> > Ipv6 address will be much more stable
> > than EUI64.
> > But, more importantly, they will be centrally assigned, ie can be
> > propagated
> > to places that maitain ACLs.
> >
>
> Just because one receives a DHCP-assigned address doesn't mean one will
> use it,
Alain,
Ipv6 address will be much more stable
than EUI64.
But, more importantly, they will be centrally assigned, ie can be
propagated
to places that maitain ACLs.
Just because one receives a DHCP-assigned address doesn't mean one will
use it, and so such "security" is fraught with risks. I
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 04:57:58PM -0400, James Carlson wrote:
> Bernie Volz (volz) writes:
> > I would think that how an address is assigned shouldn't enter into this.
> > I can't see that it matters.
>
> It matters only in that different assignment mechanisms have different
> inherent stabilitie
ikelyhood of stability is selected.
>
> - Alain.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Bernie Volz (volz) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 12:37 PM
> > To: James Carlson; Vlad Yasevich
> > Cc: Durand, Alain; ipv6@ietf.o
> It matters only in that different assignment mechanisms have different
> inherent stabilities:
>
> manual: "forever"
>
> DHCPv6: until the lifetime expires and the server refuses to
> renew
>
> stateless: until the network interface hardware is swapped
There
Bernie Volz (volz) writes:
> I would think that how an address is assigned shouldn't enter into this.
> I can't see that it matters.
It matters only in that different assignment mechanisms have different
inherent stabilities:
manual: "forever"
DHCPv6: until the lifetime expires a
o: Manfredi, Albert E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Durand, Alain
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
> Sent: Thu Oct 26 16:03:26 2006
> Subject: RE: address selection and DHCPv6
>
> I would think that how an address is assigned shouldn't enter into this.
> I can't see that it matters.
&g
nd, Alain
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Sent: Thu Oct 26 16:03:26 2006
Subject: RE: address selection and DHCPv6
I would think that how an address is assigned shouldn't enter into this.
I can't see that it matters.
What really matters is the lifetimes associated with the address. The
longest lifetim
48 PM
To: Bernie Volz (volz)
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: address selection and DHCPv6
Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> I would think that how an address is assigned shouldn't enter into
this.
> I can't see that it matters.
>
> What really matters is the lifetimes assoc
ime?
- Bernie
-Original Message-
From: Manfredi, Albert E [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 3:06 PM
To: Durand, Alain
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: address selection and DHCPv6
Except that from what others have said, that might not be the desired
goal. Perhaps for p
Gray, Eric writes:
> --> The question is not to get an absolutely stable address,
> --> but to make sure that in case multiple addresses are defined,
> --> the one with the highest likelyhood of stability is selected.
>
> When you say "highest likelihood of stability" - is what
> you really
> -Original Message-
> From: Gray, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 4:27 PM
> To: Durand, Alain
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; James Carlson; Vlad Yasevich
> Subject: RE: address selection and DHCPv6
>
> --> The question is not to get a
rg
Subject: RE: address selection and DHCPv6
Except that from what others have said, that might not be the desired
goal. Perhaps for privacy or other reasons, a most stable address choice
might not be optimal.
I originally thought that would be the best choice, but ...
Bert
> -Ori
--> > To: James Carlson; Vlad Yasevich
--> > Cc: Durand, Alain; ipv6@ietf.org
--> > Subject: RE: address selection and DHCPv6
--> >
--> > Whatever technique you use will likely never guarantee a
--> > completely stable address.
--> >
--> > Manually assigned
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 2:00 PM
> To: Bernie Volz (volz); James Carlson; Vlad Yasevich
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: address selection and DHCPv6
>
> The question is not to get an absolutely stable address,
> but to make sure that in case mul
Thursday, October 26, 2006 12:37 PM
> To: James Carlson; Vlad Yasevich
> Cc: Durand, Alain; ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: address selection and DHCPv6
>
> Whatever technique you use will likely never guarantee a
> completely stable address.
>
> Manually assigned is just a
Bernie Volz (volz) writes:
> Whatever technique you use will likely never guarantee a completely
> stable address.
>
> Manually assigned is just as good (or bad) as DHCPv6 because both depend
> on some type of stable storage (so yes there is hardware associated with
> it). (Well, I guess you could
: address selection and DHCPv6
Vlad Yasevich writes:
> The concept that a DHCP address is more stable then
> EUI64 base address is flawed in my opinion. Both depend
> on a piece of hardware that can fail or be changed.
That's incorrect. See RFC 3315 -- DUIDs are required to be stabl
Vlad Yasevich writes:
> The concept that a DHCP address is more stable then
> EUI64 base address is flawed in my opinion. Both depend
> on a piece of hardware that can fail or be changed.
That's incorrect. See RFC 3315 -- DUIDs are required to be stable,
even if the hardware is changed.
> I gue
Laganier
>> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; Durand, Alain
>> Subject: Re: address selection and DHCPv6
>>
>>> The concept that a DHCP address is more stable then
>> EUI64 base address is flawed in my opinion. Both depend on a
>> piece of hardware that can fail or be changed.
&
> -Original Message-
> From: Vlad Yasevich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:58 AM
> To: Julien Laganier
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; Durand, Alain
> Subject: Re: address selection and DHCPv6
>
>> The concept that a DHCP address is mo
Julien Laganier wrote:
> Hi Vlad,
>
> On Wednesday 25 October 2006 18:22, Vlad Yasevich
> wrote:
>>> So, yes, there is a reason to prefer a configured
>>> address over a stateless autoconf one. Same
>>> argument applies with DHCPv6 configured addresses.
>> [...]
>>
>> Also, this preference real
Hi Vlad,
On Wednesday 25 October 2006 18:22, Vlad Yasevich
wrote:
> > So, yes, there is a reason to prefer a configured
> > address over a stateless autoconf one. Same
> > argument applies with DHCPv6 configured addresses.
>
> [...]
>
> Also, this preference really depends on the usage
> case
Vlad Yasevich writes:
> Also, this preference really depends on the usage cases. I can see
> scenarios, where I would rather use autoconfigured address over the DHCP
> or manually assigned one.
Can you describe these?
> The concern I have is someone else may find the above preference backwards
>
Durand, Alain wrote:
>
> Yes, they do, especially when different types of addreses
> are configured on the same Interface/prefix.
> For example, you can have a host with mannually configured
> address 2001:db8:1:1::1 and a stateless autoconf address
> within the same prefix: 2001:db8:1:1::
> -Original Message-
> From: Vlad Yasevich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 10:07 AM
> To: James Carlson
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: address selection and DHCPv6
> Why do you want to distinguish between DHCP, manual, and
>
Vlad Yasevich writes:
> Why do you want to distinguish between DHCP, manual, and autoconfigured
> addresses?
In some deployments, DHCP-derived and manually configured addresses
may have attributes that statelessly autoconfigured addresses do not,
such as useful DNS entries. Stateless autoconfigur
James Carlson wrote:
> I've done quite a bit of searching over the archives and over various
> web resources, but I haven't seen this issue addressed directly.
> Apologies if I've just missed it.
>
> RFC 3484 ("Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol version 6
> (IPv6)") section 5 gives a
- Alain.
> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence Zou [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 11:41 PM
> To: Durand, Alain; 'James Carlson'; ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: address selection and DHCPv6
>
> another rule 9?
>
>
>
&
For example,an interface has two an addresses, automatic-configured 1000::1/65
and manually-configured 2000::1/64,and 1000::2/64 is the on-link neighbour of
the interface.We send a packet, for example and ICMPv6 echo, with a destination
address of 1000::2 from the interface,then the source addre
another rule 9?
Best regards,
Lawrence
>-Original Message-
>From: Durand, Alain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 10:40 AM
>To: Lawrence Zou; James Carlson; ipv6@ietf.org
>Subject: RE: address selection and DHCPv6
>
>Lawrence,
>
&
; To: 'James Carlson'; ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: address selection and DHCPv6
>
> I don't think we should amending rule 7 in such a way.
> in fact , i think this will make the rule 8 unworkable.
> according to RFC3484,when at last we have two source address
> avai
I don't think we should amending rule 7 in such a way.
in fact , i think this will make the rule 8 unworkable.
according to RFC3484,when at last we have two source address
available,both can pass rule1-rule7,then,the rule 8
will chose the longest match prefix.but if we amend rule 7 and prefer
man
I like your rule7bis algorithm.
When RFC3484 was discussed, it was clear that it will need to be
revisited
over time to cover new types of addresses or new use cases.
- Alain.
> -Original Message-
> From: James Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 3:52
36 matches
Mail list logo
