Re: rfc4941bis: On the use of multiple addresses

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 4:54 PM Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:

> Folks,
>
> Based on the recent discussion regarding the possible impact of the use
> of multiple addresses, I suggest we include the following text in
> Section 4 of rfc4941bis:
>
> "Network deployments are currently recommended to provide multiple IPv6
> addresses from each prefix to general-purpose hosts. However, in some
> scenarios, use of a large number of IPv6 addresses may have negative
> implications on some network devices (e.g. [RFC6583]), exacerbate other
> operational problems (e.g. [draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems])
> and/or may lead to traffic employing these addresses being dropped by
> devices that enforcing port security that may enforce a limit on the
> maximum number of configured addresses per host (e.g. [RFC7039]). A
> discussion on possible approaches to allow for unconstrained use of IPv6
> addresses can be found in [RFC7934]"
>

maybe "...found in [RFC7934] and one of these approaches is defined in
[RFC8273]."

> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================