On 06/07/2015 08:33, Dave Taht wrote: > On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Brian E Carpenter > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >>> Stateless assignment based on Modified EUI64 interface identifiers >>> [RFC4291] SHOULD be used for address assignment whenever possible, >> >> This is new and problematic. EUI64 is pretty much deprecated now, see >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-address-generation-privacy-07 >> (in IETF Last Call) for background, and https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7217 >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-04 for >> the way forward. > > Oy. One of the things I rely on is mark 1 eyeball when a device is > renumbered, or has multiple ipv6 addresses. Recognizing the std SLAAC > hex vomit pattern is VERY hard, but at least I can find things > again.... > > Lacking any decent naming support is a real PITA when your lower level > identifiers are random and changing all the time.
Yep. That is of course the intended effect from a privacy point of view. I expect that enterprise network managers will hate it too. Please not shoot messenger. Brian >>> otherwise (e.g., for IPv4) the following method MUST be used instead: >>> For any assigned prefix for which SLAAC cannot be used, the first >>> quarter of the addresses are reserved for routers HNCP based address >>> assignments, whereas the last three quarters are left to the DHCPv6 >> >> That would only be acceptable, I think, if you also specify that >> pseudo-random >> allocation is used within the 1/4 and 3/4 of the addresses (referring >> to IPv6 only). >> >> Brian >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> homenet mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > > > _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
