On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Tony Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > |So the EUI-64 format seems like a pretty practical one to use > |for an IPv6 or IPv6-like environment. > > Agreed. The ability escape to a crypto-generated ID seems like a sufficient > mitigation, IMHO.
Disagree for reasons stated in my other post. A client-side ID which is either constant or predictable day over day has terrible privacy implications. On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Dino Farinacci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However, you get zero aggregation of ID space with EUI-64 assignments. Not > good for a mapping database. You're not supposed to be aggregating the identifier. You're not supposed to be using the identifier in a manner where aggregation would even be helpful. The Locater is supposed to aggregate with topologically nearby Locaters while the identifier doesn't. That's the whole point of the split. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
