RE: stable vs address-derived v6 prefix [Re: v6 deployment in general [Re: tunnel broker deployment [RE: Tunneling scenarios and mechanisms evaluation]]]

[Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>]

> Thus: a protocol should make it possible to have anonymous
> _and_ authenticated mechanisms, per choice of the entity
> deploying the mechanism. 

Agree completely. We shouldn't need two separate protocols/mechanisms
for this.

> The anonymous mechanisms could use
> some kind of cookie method to allow the user to 'autoregister'
> and when they come back present the cookie and allowing them
> to get their former prefix back, add a lifetime to that and
> we have a transition-dhcp protocol. Cookies should not rely
> on the IPv4 address as that might change. I am a proponent
> of stable addresses btw, thus having the above for anonymous
> users helps dealing with that. Also rfc3041 is not for me ;)

Good idea to look at a cookie approach.
Presumably the provider of the tunnel service would decide when to reuse
prefixes - a cookie might be used once and never again so some garbage
collection mechanism is needed. But that is probably the case
for manually registered tunnel users as well.

  Erik