IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses for the network

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 24 January 2020 17:20 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 77B6A1208F4 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:20:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 A2YBpisS5jlt for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:20:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BE56120B49 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:20:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1A9C3897F; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 12:19:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A869A60A; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 12:20:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
cc: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses for the network
In-Reply-To: <240550a2-803b-b108-5261-564c22a1eae0@si6networks.com>
References: <03C832CE-7282-4320-BF1B-4CB7167FE6BE@employees.org> <2044DC74-3529-45BF-9886-56030B5EA515@gmail.com> <059D9CB7-9677-4CD2-BCDC-2393FA072BD7@cisco.com> <240550a2-803b-b108-5261-564c22a1eae0@si6networks.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.1.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 12:20:25 -0500
Message-ID: <30845.1579886425@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/6ecASSgP0X-qqGkNpJT3od8rVig>
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: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 17:20:28 -0000

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
    > Nodes can configure as many addresses as they please. If you want the
    > network to enforce policy, then you should probably be using DHCPv6 --
    > as many enterprises do.

I think that the too many addresses is more an issue on
conference/coffee-shop networks rather than in an enterprise environment.

I think that it is reasonable to establish an upper limit (8? 16?) of number
of entries per MAC address in a border router in those environments.
(Are there such controls today in APs/routers?)
This is exactly the place where temporary addresses make the most sense.
The only reason it isn't a problem now is because (a) lack of IPv6,
(b) most coffee-shop visits are shorter than lifetime.

Maybe there is some data from IETF/ARIN/RIPE network NOCs that could help.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email