On 05/24/2013 03:32 PM, Hosnieh Rafiee wrote:
> about RFC 4941. You just used the current implementations with their current
> problems. The reason that I wrote this draft was that the "stable addresses"
> wanted to keep its IID within the same network and not assign several IIDs
> within the same
On 05/25/2013 09:06 AM, Hosnieh Rafiee wrote:
As I explained in my answer to Ray in my last message, if monitoring and
other things are your first priority, then you can use another approach
rather than that of RFC 4941. But you cannot say that this RFC will not be
used in future because we thin
> I work primarily with customers who implement networks inside their own
> borders. Ray is 100% correct that stable addressing for end users is a
very high
> priority for things like access control, accountability, reporting, SOX,
etc.
> Whether or not it should be so is an entirely different q
> At our site we do just this; an SNMP-based tool harvests IP/MAC/port data
from
> the switches,routers etc. I agree that it works very well.
>
> That said, I expect quite a few (enterprise) sites will try to disable
4941. Or if
> they use ULAs as well, to disable for ULAs for internal traffic. T
On 05/24/2013 08:17 AM, Hosnieh Rafiee wrote:
I just wonder why, when you can use a monitoring system to log all your
events (MAC + IP) when you are inside a corporate network, you see this as a
big issue.
I work primarily with customers who implement networks inside their own
borders. Ray is
Hosnieh Rafiee wrote:
>>> In corporate environments it is very important that cross-correlation
>>> of log events can occur to support various operational processes (also
>>> over longer periods of time and for examining historical records).
>>> IPv4 did not randomly rotate end node identifiers i
Comments in-line...
On 24 May 2013, at 16:17, Hosnieh Rafiee wrote:
>
> I just wonder why, when you can use a monitoring system to log all your
> events (MAC + IP) when you are inside a corporate network, you see this as a
> big issue. You can also rotate your logs so that a large amount of stor
> >
> I have read this draft and I don't particularly like it for several
operational
> reasons.
>
> 1) Use of purely random unpredictable IIDs appears to impose an ISP model
of
> working where there is no trust relationship between the end node and the
> network infrastructure.
>
> In corporate
Hi Tim,
>Can you clarify, succinctly, what your proposal adds that you cannot
achieve by a combination
of http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses/
and RFC4941?
I do not want to open up the old discussion here again. If you use RFC 4941
or in other word you enable
> > In corporate environments it is very important that cross-correlation
> > of log events can occur to support various operational processes (also
> > over longer periods of time and for examining historical records).
> > IPv4 did not randomly rotate end node identifiers in an uncorrelated
> > ma
On 23 May 2013, at 18:36, Ray Hunter wrote:
>
> In corporate environments it is very important that cross-correlation of
> log events can occur to support various operational processes (also over
> longer periods of time and for examining historical records). IPv4 did
> not randomly rotate end n
Hi,
Can you clarify, succinctly, what your proposal adds that you cannot achieve by
a combination of
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses/ and
RFC4941?
It seems a key point is that 4941 "only" says SHOULD for the IID regeneration
when the prefix changes. Y
Hosnieh Rafiee wrote:
>
> follow up to the follow up:
>
> sorry, I sent the wrong link the last time. this is the correct link:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rafiee-6man-ra-privacy
>
> :-| it is not my day…… :-/
>
> Hosnieh
>
I have read this draft and I don't particularly like it for seve
follow up to the follow up:
sorry, I sent the wrong link the last time. this is the correct link:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rafiee-6man-ra-privacy
:-| it is not my day.. :-/
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group m
Follow up,
I forgot to post the link to the draft :-)
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-rafiee-6man-ra-privacy
Thanks,
Best,
Hosnieh
I first want to thank Dave who took the time to read and comment on my draft
and to discuss the problems associated with it. Based on some
I first want to thank Dave who took the time to read and comment on my draft
and to discuss the problems associated with it. Based on some offline
discussions with Dave, I have changed this document to better address the
current issues with RFC 4941 which are actually related to differences in
inte
16 matches
Mail list logo
