IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses for the network

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Fri, 24 January 2020 23:02 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@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 045E612001B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 15:02:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.497
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.497 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, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 wRP396FFzzrA for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 15:02:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22a.google.com (mail-oi1-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22a]) (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 B011A1200E9 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 15:02:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22a.google.com with SMTP id q81so1174403oig.0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 15:02:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=nZIG9t/NXSCsRIu5gdXXe0dFQdbteER3I5CZABhP2uU=; b=M+0RCyO45XfPvYXw1DPQ0AbuX9c8bB17gM9bEmNEyGFb++UutozlJc8XwcKLdb0C60 INYMNlu2hPfa9q2dM8PWLr5gWwEyirtYPtyGIev3zkoxwqVV+Dq0TlcEnahbK55b0eaK wc83qpTB8HQYUZcGuLbF+wjpcHWcBBnDUkYnJRU9egQCV2HbGPNXuxxqx/NZ3R1kay0s a8l1xGW4ovSoQ/aM2swayyEVQto/Iq2GzfF5QKR/8JtjeIkTdjR5zKANSxfgfvoSUM4K mvEJ1K3/9+/+Qru+G4hDioAFT6rB6PZeUUmq6dEVkooiJVzLhK5ocmKwAopHrj4yCYe9 zlLg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=nZIG9t/NXSCsRIu5gdXXe0dFQdbteER3I5CZABhP2uU=; b=KNEZ2iXnHWrcP+3P/yXqL4nwFwb/gFfSW0XpfmExfQrf8IrjRYW8dOQQG7h7wChtV6 qf2Y2r5bwxsH9GG1dAyd2zdNSq140+f4AU9YkGYW89/sZRQNQ3TeYep4l/QOphMqbHiV 5m8/c6+iQldYcui7+2v93Jrj3WDsNTqW8EsZQSt4w37hDc1PCDrnItyBvv48qOHAsqKU ls9s2mTZMLRBYa5uML1XzIyRs9c4pgMx+MJY28DKU7kBRXFa9NC+MWsuPu1MaAcBvhLp wOD1s7BwBByt0K8CHU5QCEsGHlvxwdar2u9XhWLVjA0vlPO5TXZmgXgBB1TQExr9nBXP OzaQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWJcOOTV273IFbrY9hgt08OPZCHy+jm6/at6WCl4iDqDytuFLGT 5Q2ddFlBg11kbddjhJ/Q5JevNKcRSNNfzoQvc68=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx2/1ZrWKlpsfCd50TB05z8nVqqJ419k7FVC5fXJRLtI5xGEdYt05NobxWL51g1f1RYqGysjgRTbdw5w//JTKE=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:ba46:: with SMTP id k67mr849430oif.38.1579906934014; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 15:02:14 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <7c65c99f-1418-eb07-b984-8ad7ff6b7a62@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7c65c99f-1418-eb07-b984-8ad7ff6b7a62@gmail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2020 10:02:01 +1100
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2wOcmfVMq-z_2c0eoyZmLqi7cEtEfNT2xrWH4JoLtt0rA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RFC4941bis: consequences of many addresses for the network
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, ipv6@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000948aa9059ceabf62"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/mWJxMWyhouWUR9bsIHiiSY4sZRQ>
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 23:02:17 -0000

On Sat, 25 Jan 2020, 09:11 Brian E Carpenter, <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >  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.


Going by the URL in RFC7721 it is as early as Windows XP. (RFC URL broken,
however archive.org has a copy.)


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
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email