Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses for the network

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com> Fri, 24 January 2020 12:19 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.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 4828512001E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 04:19:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.623
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.623 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.275, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no 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 HvRnMy6OrhCk for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 04:19:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECE74120013 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 04:19:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) (Smail #157) id m1iuxwI-0000M3C; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 13:19:54 +0100
Message-Id: <m1iuxwI-0000M3C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Subject: Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses for the network
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
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>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 24 Jan 2020 08:47:50 -0300 ." <dfe3a236-4e61-d2be-929c-869a81994879@si6networks.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 13:19:53 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/TAg6FB5lhXeS2H3JocWb80pa7XU>
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 12:19:58 -0000

>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.

This still allows any future RFC to describe a more advance privacy model
that does generate addresses more often.