IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses for the network

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 24 January 2020 22:11 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 0429E120A1F for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 14:11:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 kaNCAuK1gJT5 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 14:11:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x432.google.com (mail-pf1-x432.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::432]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7709120A18 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 14:11:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x432.google.com with SMTP id n9so1745530pff.13 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 14:11:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ygraqvHhLcaTu5sNBfNqoD3tVbcfK/ZN+xQ55E+39Bc=; b=mp29gFTXv04M2xEu5hprpH22Uo78S86/yyU45BdOa6lec5uFZW73TJDvZocCTE2/n6 f6AO9gtQXZd4I5GDTxPD/oiNakuiBHpTyGcTP38WnRJKcQG9hL5cDS+bSXIQG+Hwvv2v V1TeSRtUW1ZaqGRJtvNLzwV0iYstVowJk8/ymuCpH00bZQRE6DlhodnS1qaSjHxRUEGV Eb67eYae+jIXZymOogpVdFaCdrccKJEf2g5BJoMRzmyBOTW2zc/Ppx1CAZFvhHhCNGfE S3bRTgJOzNuqOINzpGt1FEKnhTNCSZ2TXmX67zbaw1PI5QJ5GBdF067dR2FHD2nj9ET1 3R0A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ygraqvHhLcaTu5sNBfNqoD3tVbcfK/ZN+xQ55E+39Bc=; b=WoXC9jitFGMNhZiSylQCCwlzgnGdOls71Xkbqa0d4fKLUSLw3+Ga+GClzSMkV1xvnb nMhsRomfZ9s6BV6W69kxxSjyLSZO2UQmEAU+Zd698swjMxUT7acekbzCFq4mHiiPlYiQ OqZ6o5yA2iEN02gm5osmTi5JnSfjm44D2qlHV//kpYSV0tSR6V+5/Ke7jqNrpueXUlQB Bb9zEpUPdczSKkXm5cixfrHkeJcXQHVDI806wsKn5UTv3d6Iv/aKv5yZEY+uDO189Z/k NpycCR7gw9rIj3EUbh1ZxKnygvAL3Zye+uGpmZVnUBxJgdXoCD8W5t0Uwe18wSXWrqTu 8czg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXPhMv9mC3KyLUX2nloFXh4W/JFVphgh+8bXq4xN55W+ar2a5+l 8zCaJ47MRHT10WgQ7+OoUnkI5x7y
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzZ+h1GAMTA6zbln8w07YpWQMAof1A6f7qr6pE2+oF8X2NF/Tp5OYJIaM28KOfD40ZRdoJWrQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:5f84:: with SMTP id t126mr6288514pgb.71.1579903869926; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 14:11:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] (88.161.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.161.88]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p24sm7187726pff.69.2020.01.24.14.11.07 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 24 Jan 2020 14:11:09 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses for the network
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <03C832CE-7282-4320-BF1B-4CB7167FE6BE@employees.org> <e936078e-01f9-0254-a8d0-4095455154ac@si6networks.com> <D85412DF-4B03-4790-9E39-968D50ECF86B@employees.org> <m1iuwJV-0000MAC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <B341FF1B-C559-4D54-B117-A58EB6A3C955@employees.org> <dfe3a236-4e61-d2be-929c-869a81994879@si6networks.com> <m1iuxwI-0000M3C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CABNhwV1XcATmrosW_kRTJgrXyTSNqPe=uR4VDt=_eXtt5=H3CQ@mail.gmail.com> <431eefce-594f-b7bd-4d49-a7a7ddbcd684@si6networks.com> <CABNhwV1wA+ntT1SHzzF19VotpXED=MOD2HTbQq2hL_nhaOR3qw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7c65c99f-1418-eb07-b984-8ad7ff6b7a62@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2020 11:11:05 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV1wA+ntT1SHzzF19VotpXED=MOD2HTbQq2hL_nhaOR3qw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Q8Cc9hA5ze_tJRfL9XABXM3AMro>
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 22:11:12 -0000

>  I agree RFC 7217 stable address is most preferred however Microsoft and Apple don’t support yet. 

I have no idea for Apple, but afaik MS switched to pseudorandom stable IIDs per interface a long time ago, before Windows 7 possibly. I haven't seen a modified EUI-64 address on my laptop for a very long time. This is not the same thing as RFC7217 from a privacy point of view, but for network operations and neighbour cache size it seems like the same thing.

Anyway, I hope we're all agreed that this topic, however interesting is not worth more than a small comment in RFC4941bis. Isn't it actually a v6ops topic ("Operational impact of numerous addresses per host")?

Regards
   Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email