rfc4941bis: On the use of multiple addresses

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Thu, 30 January 2020 22:54 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 9345B1200C4 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 14:54:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 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] 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 dQgzkMj1aEP9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 14:54:04 -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 2B2321200B9 for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 14:54:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.100.103] (unknown [186.183.50.221]) (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 A1A8586789; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 23:54:01 +0100 (CET)
To: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Subject: rfc4941bis: On the use of multiple addresses
Message-ID: <4c7c16fd-ddef-eec0-d34e-29e91df6ce25@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 19:49:08 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
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/ipv6/3_t4gb3j3mGJFDVLOpOGQWUN628>
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, 30 Jan 2020 22:54:05 -0000

Folks,

Based on the recent discussion regarding the possible impact of the use 
of multiple addresses, I suggest we include the following text in 
Section 4 of rfc4941bis:

"Network deployments are currently recommended to provide multiple IPv6 
addresses from each prefix to general-purpose hosts. However, in some 
scenarios, use of a large number of IPv6 addresses may have negative 
implications on some network devices (e.g. [RFC6583]), exacerbate other 
operational problems (e.g. [draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems]) 
and/or may lead to traffic employing these addresses being dropped by 
devices that enforcing port security that may enforce a limit on the 
maximum number of configured addresses per host (e.g. [RFC7039]). A 
discussion on possible approaches to allow for unconstrained use of IPv6 
addresses can be found in [RFC7934]"

Thoughts?

Thanks!

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