Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses for the network

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 24/1/20 09:19, Philip Homburg wrote:
>> However, when it comes to rfc4941bis, I don't think there's much more to
>> do than simply including a small paragraph noting that an implementation
>> should be aware about regenerating addresses too quickly,
> 
> If people feel strongly about the risk of generating temporary addresses
> too quickly, why not have a TEMP_MIN_PREFERRED_LIFETIME and have some
> text that a node SHOULD NOT generate temporary addresses more often
> than one address (per prefix) per TEMP_MIN_PREFERRED_LIFETIME.

I guess the issue here is which value to pick for it; i.e., something 
that gives enough leeway for folks that want to tweak this parameter, 
but now too low to alow folks to cause damage.

If anything, I'd probably employ the limit enforced on BSDs and Linux (I 
don't remember the specific value, but could check). It's mostly there 
to prevent insane settings, but still allows hosts to generate addresses 
quite frequently.

-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492