On 14 Apr 2012, at 15:09, Fernando Gont wrote: > On 04/14/2012 12:30 PM, Tim Chown wrote: >> I while ago I put this one forward, which is an alternative to >> Fernando's suggestion that you have to set the whole address: >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chown-6man-tokenised-ipv6-identifiers-00 >> >> This was based on existing implementations, in Solaris and Linux (as >> a demonstrator), with the potential for simpler renumbering in mind. > > Does this really help renumbering? e.g., if you have ACLs, they are > based on the whole IPv6 address, rather than on the IID...
It helps reduce the need to store full literals in any configuration, so if the host is renumbered, it can have a new "manually configured" address in the new prefix automatically without touching wherever that might otherwise be configured on the host. Some platforms allow macros, like the IOS ipv6 general-prefix notation iirc. You can then replace the new prefix and not touch the rest of the configuration. We did such renumbering tests as long ago as 2004/05, and these tools were certainly useful back then (it's very dated now, but see http://www.6net.org/publications/deliverables/D3.6.2.pdf for example) > Note: I still don't understand the use case for this technology, or how > the IIDs would be selected (but since they seem to be > manually-generated, I'd expect them to be "low-byte", such as ::1, ::2, > etc.). They can be whatever you want them to be. Based on our IPv6 mail logs, an awful lot of MXs use <prefix>::25 for example. But if you want a stable identifier across renumbering events, or without configuring a full literal, the tokenised identifier concept is quite nice. I don't know if Sun has any IPR claim on it though. Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
