IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses for the network

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Fri, 24 January 2020 05:31 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 C81A612006F for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 21:31:50 -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 hiYViofYBZzT for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 21:31:49 -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 B89A9120041 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 21:31:49 -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 11E6285FEF; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 06:25:00 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses for the network
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <03C832CE-7282-4320-BF1B-4CB7167FE6BE@employees.org> <2044DC74-3529-45BF-9886-56030B5EA515@gmail.com> <059D9CB7-9677-4CD2-BCDC-2393FA072BD7@cisco.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <240550a2-803b-b108-5261-564c22a1eae0@si6networks.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 02:20:26 -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: <059D9CB7-9677-4CD2-BCDC-2393FA072BD7@cisco.com>
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/Iy9igEIURD08ANB_OSIiPdb6DME>
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 05:31:51 -0000

On 23/1/20 14:52, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> Hello Bob
> 
> The issue is not confined within the node. This impacts the routers and the whole infra (think VXLANs).

Well, that's slaac: configuration anarchy of some sort.

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.

That said, 4941bis addresses flaws/shortcommings of RFC4941. It is not 
introducing the concept of temporary addresses.

-- 
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