[ppml] IPv6 address as a Globally Unique ID?

[Martin Hannigan]

>On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 11:13:16AM -0800, David Conrad wrote:
>>  Martin,
>>
>>  On Feb 1, 2006, at 10:49 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>>  > I think a clarification should requested first. That clarification
>>  > should ask whether the cards are intended to interface with the
>>  > network, or not. If they are, they are technically devices and if 
>>  > someone
>>  > decides to utilize them as unique identifierfor a secondary 
>>  > purpose, I'm
>>  > not sure that it's a problem.
>>
>>  If they are intended to be connected to the network and the addresses 
>>  are assigned to the person, then it would be a problem (assuming 
>>  provider-based routing is still the routing paradigm in use).
>
>	that presumes something about the federal network, no?


Yes and that is an operational issue.


I'm supporting the position that the card is a device
eligible to be "addressed" in one way or another and that secondary uses
are not unauthorized by any policy. I would not support policies that
restrict uses of addresses for other purposes since it is technically 
only possible to use the addresses as designed, for network devices.

If others "key" off of an IPV6 address as an identifier, that's a
mistake on their part, but that shouldn't be a consideration in
allocating the space.

Again, I'll offer Cisco+VMPS as an example of this is not a unique
idea. I am hesitant to share my personal opinion of it though since
it is tough to see where the technical issue ends and the political
problem ensues.


-M<



-- 
Martin Hannigan                                (c) 617-388-2663
Renesys Corporation                            (w) 617-395-8574
Member of the Technical Staff                  Network Operations
                                               hannigan at renesys.com