Subject: Reserved IIDs - TAKE 2

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:19:39 -0400

Hi Folks,
   Some RFCs (I know of at least 2, RFC2526 and RFC4291) reserve a set 
of interface identifiers on all prefixes. These identifiers need to be 
excluded when a node autoconfigures an address. This problem occurs with 
privacy addresses but is equally applicable to other address assigment 
methods like dhcpv6, cga etc. Instead of new documents referring to each 
of these RFCs individually it would be convenient to have a single store 
of information. Recently (due to upcoming RFC4941) I also found out that 
some of the documents reserving such identifiers may be on a lower 
maturity level than the ones that need to use the identifiers. Hence it 
makes sense to create an IANA registry for this purpose. I would like to 
hear people's opinions on this. I would like to pursue this either as a 
WG document or a personal submission. You can find my draft at

http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipv6/draft-krishnan-ipv6-reserved-iids-01.txt

Thanks
Suresh

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Rémi Denis-Courmont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:35:09 +0300

Hello,

> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipv6/draft-krishnan-ipv6-reserved-iids-01.txt

I wonder if ISATAP needs to be included here. It was my understanding that you 
cannot use non-ISATAP IIDs on ISATAP virtual links, and that ISATAP IIDs had 
no particular meaning on non ISATAP links.

Or perhaps, is the intent merely to avoid human confusion?

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:39:17 -0400

Hi Remi,
   Thanks for pointing this out. Fred Templin convinced me that 
including ISATAP IIDs was not necessary. I am convinced as well, but I 
could not make the change in time for the cutoff. I will remove these in 
-02.

Thanks
Suresh

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 08:44:11 -0700

> I wonder if ISATAP needs to be included here.

I am sort of still wondering this, too. But, see below and
also Suresh's follow-up message.

> It was my understanding that you 
> cannot use non-ISATAP IIDs on ISATAP virtual links,

Correct.

> and that ISATAP IIDs had no particular meaning on non ISATAP links.

Also correct, which is why I tried to convince Suresh that their
inclusion in his list was not necessary.

> Or perhaps, is the intent merely to avoid human confusion?

AFAICT, this would be the one reason for including the IIDs
in Suresh's list. Maybe there is still some potential issue
for mis-configuration here that would warrant keeping them
on the list?

Fred
[email-masked]