IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses for the network

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Thu, 23 January 2020 14:10 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5E2412004D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 06:10:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Up8QwBtNnOEt for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 06:10:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D739212004A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 06:10:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.100.103] (unknown [186.183.3.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DE64886202; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 15:10:39 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses for the network
To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet=40consulintel.es@dmarc.ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <03C832CE-7282-4320-BF1B-4CB7167FE6BE@employees.org> <MN2PR11MB3565330989D411525D30B90DD80F0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <80207E17-AE8E-4D19-B516-D2E6AB70721E@employees.org> <8D5610EA-49D3-483E-BB7A-67D67BC89346@jisc.ac.uk> <DE7B0688-230F-4A5C-8E24-9EAED9FD9FEB@puck.nether.net> <AFEBAD7D-DF24-4924-8B9A-60DF22BA1953@consulintel.es>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <c42affce-fbd3-23ec-c9ff-4f05cdf38630@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 11:10:29 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AFEBAD7D-DF24-4924-8B9A-60DF22BA1953@consulintel.es>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/1MMUmFCsI1LHV8hEOjpiRioaKGM>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 14:10:51 -0000

On 23/1/20 10:46, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Even not just debugging, but the operational complexity when in some
> scenarios, certain apps need to "audit" which user did what. Using
> DHCPv6 is not an option, because Android doesn't support it ... and I
> will not recommend a customer to use "manual IPv6 configuration" :-(

To the occasional reader or lurker, this might read as IPv6 folks 
arguing that, after all, having too many addresses wasn't much of a good 
idea (?) :-)

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email