Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion

[David Schinazi <[e-mail]>]

David,

I believe we should not recommend limiting the number of addresses a host can use.
Networks are already free to punish misbehaving clients (by number of packets or addresses for example),
that doesn’t need to be explicitly specified in this document.

I understand your concerns about abuse, but hosts can already use this many addresses today and our document
will not impact how many addresses hosts choose to use - only how many are available to them from the network.

Thanks,
David


On November 3, 2015 at 01:16:53, David Farmer ([e-mail]) wrote:

On 11/3/15 02:02 , Lorenzo Colitti wrote:  
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 4:40 PM, David Farmer <[e-mail]  
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:  
>  
> I'm not stuck on those words, I'm just looking for something that  
> acknowledges if networks impose no hard limit on the number of IPv6  
> addresses, that is not a excuse for hosts and applications to go crazy.  
>  
> Furthermore, I'm a little worried if I set a threshold of lets say  
> 1000 IPv6 addresses and then quarantine a host as a network abuser,  
> am I violating the spirit of this draft? Is 500 too low? 250?  
>  
>  
> I think this concern can be addressed without placing requirements on  
> the host and thus host creep. For example, would it address your  
> concerns if the draft said that a network can pose limits on IPv6  
> addresses if the device uses an unreasonable number of addresses (e.g.,  
> hundreds)?  

Something like that will probably work. Where are you thinking of  
putting it?  

--  
================================================  
David Farmer Email: [e-mail]  
Office of Information Technology  
University of Minnesota  
2218 University Ave SE Phone: [phone]  
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952  
================================================  

_______________________________________________  
v6ops mailing list  
[e-mail]  
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops