Mailing List Archive

default IID mechanism (was Re: macos Sierra with CGA address?)
>> My info is, to set
>> sysctl -w net.inet6.send.opstate=0
>> to go back to mac address based eui64, but didn't checked it.
>
> Please don't resort to eui64. That's a bad idea. See RFC7721 and RFC707
Hmm, yes but from an operating view...

In case of re-numbering your network, RFC72177217 (and SEND as well) is
a step backward. Both EUI48 and the Windows random stable IID mech have
the benefit of prefix independent IIDs.

The change of name to IP mapping in the DNS is ways easier if the IID
remain the same. I have a small programm to re-generate additional AAAA
records if I have to introduce a new provider prefix (and delete the old
one as well).

If the IID is prefix dependent (CGA, RFC7216), than the best (or the
only scalable way) is that the host itself updates the DNS via dynamic
updates.
And integrating dynamic dns into standard operating systems is another
thing I'm waiting for a long time now.

BR
Holger
Re: default IID mechanism (was Re: macos Sierra with CGA address?) [ In reply to ]
On 16/12/2016 00:12, Holger Zuleger wrote:
>
>>> My info is, to set
>>> sysctl -w net.inet6.send.opstate=0
>>> to go back to mac address based eui64, but didn't checked it.
>>
>> Please don't resort to eui64. That's a bad idea. See RFC7721 and RFC707
> Hmm, yes but from an operating view...
>
> In case of re-numbering your network, RFC72177217 (and SEND as well) is
> a step backward. Both EUI48 and the Windows random stable IID mech have
> the benefit of prefix independent IIDs.
>
> The change of name to IP mapping in the DNS is ways easier if the IID
> remain the same. I have a small programm to re-generate additional AAAA
> records if I have to introduce a new provider prefix (and delete the old
> one as well).
>
> If the IID is prefix dependent (CGA, RFC7216), than the best (or the
> only scalable way) is that the host itself updates the DNS via dynamic
> updates.
> And integrating dynamic dns into standard operating systems is another
> thing I'm waiting for a long time now.

Using Dynamic DNS Update for this has been recommended since RFC4192 in
2005. We renewed that in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7010#section-6.1 .
If many operators yell for it, it might even happen.

Brian

> BR
> Holger
>