Re: [RRG] IEEE EUI-64 as an Identifier format

["William Herrin" <bill@herrin.us>]

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> 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 <dino@cisco.com> 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 ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com 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