Re: rfc4941bis: Invalid addresses used by ongoing sessions

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Tue, 11 February 2020 05:12 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 6E710120052 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 21:12:07 -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 lP5WI6K67s9Y for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 21:12:06 -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 D3CEB120041 for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 21:12:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.29] (host138.200-117-192.telecom.net.ar [200.117.192.138]) (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 B2BBA868D9; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 06:11:59 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: rfc4941bis: Invalid addresses used by ongoing sessions
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Cc: 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>
References: <c6ba9a00-cb44-2022-5009-34211966518c@si6networks.com> <CAO42Z2wq0YA_5twXJ2yqVqBWM4_sZ9eBGqAJQgJH2PV1uKaANg@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV3RE-VzMkVSmXjwCJ-Yo67NTOL6+AKt7=n+kRZuiNSKBQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <fe9005bc-b6cf-7f2d-fdf2-32b0d3d163ef@si6networks.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 02:11:50 -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: <CABNhwV3RE-VzMkVSmXjwCJ-Yo67NTOL6+AKt7=n+kRZuiNSKBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/oezne-J_M2dluHnW0qZIWVLb2eA>
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: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 05:12:07 -0000

On 10/2/20 22:47, Gyan Mishra wrote:
> 
> 
> I prefer #1 as to place into the body of the document.
> 
> This is a very important subject as far trade off.
> 
> As from an operational impact from an enterprise perspective as the goal 
> is to have as minimal as possible addresses on the device without impact 
> to end user experience. So #1 does achieve this objective.

Actually #1 may do the opposite. If addresses that are being used are 
not eliminated when their Valid Lifetime expire, then, as long as each 
address is employed by a long-lived connection, you could end up piling 
up lots of addresses.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492