[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: about draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req-00.txt

Hi Tim,

Tim Chown wrote:

On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 12:34:48PM +0900, Ruri Hiromi wrote:

      For example, You can set priority on 3041 address by putting a
      line in policy table specifying 3041 address by 128-bit prefixlen
      and continuing to update policy table according to 3041 address
      changes.  But, this is surely troublesome for users and
      implementers.

      One idea is to update RFC3484 policy table definition so that it
      can handle alias addresses like privacy, DHCPv6 generated, RA
      generated, manually generated (and even Home Address ?)

      To prefer privacy address by default, and to prefer RA-generated
      address for site internal, the policy table will look like this.

           Prefix                         Pref   Label
           2001:db8:1234::(PRIVACY)/128   30     2
           ::/0                           10     2
           2001:db8:1234::(RA):/128       30     1
           2001:db8::/48                  20     1


Hi,

Do you mean it is macroed, or that specific /128's are passed by DHCP
for the policy table?    The DHCP server may not know the autoconf
address.
It also appears that Vista uses a non-standard autoconf address, that is randomly generated, as the 'RA generated address', in addition to privacy 
addresses, so whatever method you propose needs to be flexible.
I think in a general managed enterprise, the DHCP server will issue both normal and (where used) privacy addresses, so the general case is 
probably that everything is served and known by/configured by DHCP.

Tim



For the network where an IPv6 prefix is advertised by RA, a host
has an EUI-64 based IPv6 address and a Privacy Address.
Such an address attribute(EUI64 or privacy) information is only
available in the core part of the host. Network administrators, intermediate routers or sometimes even users cannot get the 
attributes easily.

This macro or flag, which depends on implementation choice, enables
network administrators and users to input address-attribute-dependent
policies to their hosts.

For the network where a DHCP server delivers a global IPv6 address
and a privacy address, it is possible for the DHCP server to also
deliver address selection policy by specific 128-bit. In this case,
there is no need to modify RFC3484 definition.

About Vista, as you had pointed out, it doesn't use EUI-64 anymore,
which is legitimate behavior. I guess this macro should be defined as "RA based non-privacy address". 

The number of attributes will surely increase in the future, we have
to have reserved attribute number space for them.

Best regards.