Hi, Christian,
On 04/23/2013 12:02 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
After reading the document again, the main issue is that the document
specifies a solution to a problem by detailing a specific
implementation,
I personally disagree (see below).
but does not explain the design choices behind that
solution. As such, we end up with an over constrained specification,
which at the same time fails to explain the problems at hand.
Could you please elaborate?
As Mike St-Johns pointed out, the solution is trivial:
Can you post an URL for such comment? -- Because I've not been able to
find anything sent by Mike along those lines.
[....]
Instead, the draft goes into great details on how to actually
implement the random number generator.
I disagree. In the draft, F() is the PRF. Where in the I-D are we trying
to provide details on how to implement F()?
Apart from not being
necessary, some of these details are wrong. For example, the
suggested algorithm includes an "interface index," but different
operating systems have different ways of enumerating interfaces, and
the variations in enumeration could end up violating the "stable
address" property.
Which vaiations are you referring to?
(FWIW, this I-D does not require any particular namespeace fr the
INterface Index).
I would also explain the inherent issues that have to be solved,
e.g., swapping interfaces, or enabling multi-homed hosts.
FWIW, constant addreses when swapping interfaces is not really a goal f
tis dcument, but rather a byproduct of it.
And I would
observe that the DAD problem cannot be solved ina reliable way.
Could you please elaborate?
Thanks!
Best regards,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont(_at_)si6networks(_dot_)com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492