Subject: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-gont-dhc-stable-privacy-addresses-01

From: "Hosnieh Rafiee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 21:14:00 +0200

Hello,

I've read this document and support the publication of this document.

I have the following remark: 
The document should state the byte-order in which all fields are
concatenated in order to provide them as input to the hash function.
Otherwise systems that employ different byte-orders might lease different
IPv6 addresses.

Thanks,
Best,
Hosnieh

Subject: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call -
draft-gont-dhc-stable-privacy-addresses-01
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 13:06:32 +0000
From: Bernie Volz (volz) <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>

Hello:

We have received a request for initiating a call for adoption on
draft-gont-dhc-stable-privacy-addresses-01.

Please state whether or not you are in favor of the adoption by replying to
this mail. If you are not in favor, please also state your objections in
your response. This adoption call will complete on September 29, 2014.

The HTML version of the document can be viewed at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-dhc-stable-privacy-addresses-01.

If there is consensus to adopt as a WG document, we will confer with Ted
Lemon (AD) to confirm that we can adopt with work.

- Tomek & Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Fernando Gont [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 4:04 PM
To: [email-masked]; Bernie Volz (volz)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: WG call for adoption of draft-gont-dhc-stable-privacy-addresses?

Folks,

We have revised the I-D according to the feedback we have received so far.
As noted in the I-D itself, this document is a DHCPv6 version of
RFC7217 (which I authored).

We think that at this point this I-D is ready to be considered by DHC for WG
adoption.

Thoughts?

Thanks!

Best regards,
Fernando

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-gont-dhc-stable-privacy-addresses-01.txt
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 12:52:26 -0700
From: [email-masked]
To: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>, Will(Shucheng) Liu
<[email-masked]>, Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>, Shucheng
LIU (Will) <[email-masked]>

A new version of I-D, draft-gont-dhc-stable-privacy-addresses-01.txt
has been successfully submitted by Fernando Gont and posted to the IETF
repository.

Name:		draft-gont-dhc-stable-privacy-addresses
Revision:	01
Title:		A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque Interface
Identifiers with Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
Document date:	2014-09-12
Group:		Individual Submission
Pages:		8
URL:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gont-dhc-stable-privacy-addresses-
01.txt
Status:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gont-dhc-stable-privacy-addresses/
Htmlized:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-dhc-stable-privacy-addresses-01
Diff:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-gont-dhc-stable-privacy-addresses-01

Abstract:
   This document specifies a method for selecting IPv6 Interface
   Identifiers, to be employed by Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
   for IPv6 (DHCPv6) servers when leasing non-temporary IPv6 addresses
   to DHCPv6 clients.  This method is a DHCPv6 server side algorithm,
   that does not require any updates to the existing DHCPv6
   specifications.  The aforementioned method results in stable
   addresses within each subnet, even in the presence of multiple DHCPv6
   servers or even DHCPv6 server reinstallments.  It is a DHCPv6-variant
   of the method specified in RFC 7217 for IPv6 Stateless Address
   Autoconfiguration.

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

---

From: Andre Kostur <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 12:34:53 -0700

Speaking of endianness, what about sizes and representations?  The
draft calls for hashing together: "Prefix | Client_DUID | IAID |
Counter | secret_key".

How many bytes in the prefix?  Only as many as the prefix needs (ie: 6
bytes for 2001:470:e919:: ?  Or a full 16 bytes)?  How long is the
prefix?  What's the size of the counter?  1 bytes, 2 bytes, etc?  What
are the representations of the individual fields?  Octets?

These would all need to be nailed down in order to ensure
interoperability between DHCPv6 servers.

-- 
Andre Kostur

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 16:48:16 -0300

Hi, Andre & Hosnieh,

On 09/18/2014 04:34 PM, Andre Kostur wrote:
> bytes for 2001:470:e919:: ?  Or a full 16 bytes)? 

Full 16-bits -- but yes, we will make this explicit in the next rev.

> How long is the
> prefix?  What's the size of the counter?  1 bytes, 2 bytes, etc?

For counter, while 8 bits would do, I guess we could settle for 16 bits
(network byte order).

> What

For those that are not specified elsewhere, the representation should be
"octets".

> interoperability between DHCPv6 servers.

Agreed.

Thanks so much for the input!

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