Subject: Re: [6man] #1: Proper source for an "Interface Identifier"

From: "6man issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 16:55:36 -0000

#1: Proper source for an "Interface Identifier"

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * status:  new => closed
 * resolution:   => fixed

Comment:

 The "Interface Identifier" has now been replaced with a generic
 "Net_Iface" parameter, and we describe what are the required properties
 for this ID. Additionally, Appendix A is devoted to an analysis of
 possible sources for the Net_Iface parameter, and their pros and cons.

 From Section 3:

        RID = F(Prefix, Net_Iface, Network_ID, DAD_Counter, secret_key)

 [....]

        Net_Iface:
           An implementation-dependent stable identifier associated with
           the network interface for which the RID is being generated.
           An implementation MAY provide a configuration option to select
           the source of the identifier to be used for the Net_Iface
           parameter.  A discussion of possible sources for this value
           (along with the corresponding trade-offs) can be found in
           Appendix A.

 [....]

    The Net_Iface is a value that identifies the network interface for
    which an IPv6 address is being generated.  The following properties
    are desirable for the Net_Iface:

    o  it MUST be constant across system bootstrap sequences and other
       network events (e.g., bringing another interface up or down)

    o  it MUST be different for each network interface

    Since the stability of the addresses generated with this method
    relies on the stability of all arguments of F(), it is key that the
    Net_Iface be constant across system bootstrap sequences and other
    network events.  Additionally, the Net_Iface must uniquely identify
    an interface within the node, such that two interfaces connecting to
    the same network do not result in duplicate addresses.  Different
    types of operating systems might benefit from different stability
    properties of the Net_Iface parameter.  For example, a client-
    oriented operating system might want to employ Net_Iface identifiers
    that are attached to the underlying network interface card (NIC),
    such that a removable NIC always gets the same IPv6 address,
    irrespective of the system communications port to which it is
    attached.  On the other hand, a server-oriented operating system
    might prefer Net_Iface identifers that are attached to system slots/
    ports, such that replacement of a network interface card does not
    result in an IPv6 address change.  Appendix A discusses possible
    sources for the Net_Iface, along with their pros and cons.

-- 
--------------------------------------+----------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]     |       Owner:  Fernando Gont
     Type:  defect                    |      Status:  closed
 Priority:  major                     |   Milestone:
Component:  stable-privacy-addresses  |     Version:
 Severity:  Active WG Document        |  Resolution:  fixed
 Keywords:                            |
--------------------------------------+----------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/trac/ticket/1#comment:1>
6man <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/>

---

From: Karl Auer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 08:03:09 +1000

On Sun, 2013-05-19 at 16:55 +0000, 6man issue tracker wrote:
> The following properties are desirable for the Net_Iface:

This is confusing. You say the properties are desirable, then you
describe them with MUST. So - are they desirable, or are they mandatory?

Regards, K.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer ([email-masked])
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer
http://twitter.com/kauer389

GPG fingerprint: B862 FB15 FE96 4961 BC62 1A40 6239 1208 9865 5F9A
Old fingerprint: AE1D 4868 6420 AD9A A698 5251 1699 7B78 4EEE 6017

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 19:06:58 -0300

> describe them with MUST. So - are they desirable, or are they mandatory?

You're right. s/desirable/required/?

(I don't think "REQUIRED" (caps) would be needed, since the bullests
contain RFC2119-anguage, already).

Thoughts?

Thanks!

Best regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

---

From: Karl Auer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 08:55:31 +1000

> contain RFC2119-anguage, already).

LC or UC "required" would be OK.

Regards,K.

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 20:21:21 -0300

> LC or UC "required" would be OK.

Ok, done. Thanks!

Best regards,