Tim
I have mixing feelings about. I like the option, but I am not sure if I
would deploy it for my production services, perhaps only for training
labs and some other no critical infrastructure. Definitely I would not
want a rogue RA injecting the wrong prefix for my servers.
Also, I wonder why you didn't add all the issues of rogue RA in the
security considerations? At least for me, security would be one of the
major drawbacks to use it.
Regards,
as
On 05/11/2012 11:18, Tim Chown wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I forgot to ask for a 5 min slot for this in Atlanta.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chown-6man-tokenised-ipv6-identifiers-02
>
> The draft describes a way to simplify (a little!) server renumbering in
> SLAAC networks. Rather than manually configuring a 128-bit address on
> servers, you configure the 64-bit interface identifier, and rely on the
> RA to learn the prefix.
>
> There was an implementation for Solaris, and a patch for Linux many
> years ago,
>
> Is there interest in promoting this idea further, and importantly any
> IPR preventing doing so? Or is there reluctance from admins to rely on
> RAs to configure a full server IPv6 address?
>
> Tim
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email protected]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
