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

David Schinazi <dschinazi@apple.com> Mon, 30 November 2015 22:53 UTC

Return-Path: <dschinazi@apple.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3F821B322B for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 14:53:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 M8VDNIs2egZv for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 14:52:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-in5.apple.com (mail-out5.apple.com [17.151.62.27]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 889D11B3228 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 14:52:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=apple.com; s=mailout2048s; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@apple.com; t=1448923977; x=2312837577; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-id:To:Cc:MIME-version:Content-type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-reply-to:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=tCkNOxoNvXEq5V0RKLQGkQbJPXzOGFKwFxf4sytwoSs=; b=SKmfccX5kQBNbzvlQNDNjirWsoR9xsZ0LRBqm57YVu0vRtYkDhuDKfYZniefv8Qb wac2+g/GoLh1j0eFNUxF1dJ4jv3vSe53ljcMK/8/8kInveYmp2U8kP01uq1s7LJm FC0++T1BgiwuhhnVaM3sw/Pt0g3wBcNo7yTsXYd8wvXF8JaOywtTlHT2wVe8Kl66 E80vftti1QYsTGODPleXvpdtnylzYradBStQo2GiNuJuLlP9JEPX6aKvlqeoIp7+ c19FvyndDnDTZg4ofN8c1ikjZfOVb3q5lCtMDLYOm0tzAK4gubnawiS6w5skYW4C QvkYy2ddl8bYEoNW/wIKtA==;
Received: from relay8.apple.com (relay8.apple.com [17.128.113.102]) by mail-in5.apple.com (Apple Secure Mail Relay) with SMTP id D8.9D.13397.843DC565; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 14:52:56 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 11973e13-f798b6d000003455-66-565cd348cea8
Received: from kencur (kencur.apple.com [17.151.62.38]) (using TLS with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay8.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id 32.48.29028.843DC565; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 14:52:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dschinazi.apple.com (dschinazi.apple.com [17.226.40.22]) by kencur.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.37.0 64bit (built Nov 11 2015)) with ESMTPSA id <0NYN00MIJGW87D40@kencur.apple.com> for v6ops@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 14:52:56 -0800 (PST)
Sender: dschinazi@apple.com
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 14:52:56 -0800
From: David Schinazi <dschinazi@apple.com>
To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Message-id: <etPan.565cd348.212cccb9.480@dschinazi.apple.com>
In-reply-to: <56387AFB.9030308@umn.edu>
References: <8D175A1F-B1AE-44B4-838E-1C853B6C937D@cisco.com> <563817CB.6080506@umn.edu> <CAKD1Yr1rh-3E9Z_yMXWezh_zK8VW+-Q8R8U-AjBoHbypQk9LOA@mail.gmail.com> <563864DD.2010309@umn.edu> <CAKD1Yr3g2Q3kYQtKm_49kqCC-mGhrdo-Yfoa8Qx_ZyGe+YfVJw@mail.gmail.com> <56387AFB.9030308@umn.edu>
X-Mailer: Airmail (335)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary=565cd348_50011d99_480
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrNLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FCYput5OSbM4NJ0RovTx/YyOzB6LFny kymAMYrLJiU1J7MstUjfLoErY9fZlewFR4wqnr/4w9zAuFC7i5GTQ0LAROLkgW/sELaYxIV7 69m6GLk4hAT2MUo8fNnODFO06MR7VohEL5PEuh8vmCGc+UwSdw6tAGsXFpCW6LpwlxXEZhFQ lVg38xzQKA4ONgEtiQNrjEDCIgKKEu+PtzKC2MwCxhKnDzxjBynhFbCVmPCnECTMKaAuMb9v KdQRC5kkmh/sYYQY7y6x9c4zVoiDxCWeb17GBGLzCghK/Jh8jwViprPEtU3nWECaJQSOsEn0 v5jDPoFReBaSullI6mYB7WYW0JRYv0sfIqwtsWzha2aIsLTE8n8cEGENidY5c9lxKFnAyLGK USg3MTNHNzPPVC+xoCAnVS85P3cTIyh2ptsJ72A8vcrqEKMAB6MSD6/E2pgwIdbEsuLK3EOM 0hwsSuK8i0uAQgLpiSWp2ampBalF8UWlOanFhxiZODilGhh37+cwjY6edbp0x8fbtjcl3qb+ L35yvM/szY3XDY3eaTLBZ1ckphnGCInf7fR5/Ky0JXyFQf3EzNX8P3/9ZpyrteTKxuu5q4+v NTkcevKKa6nZTzGFL1/EN/Tt2H+51/TgJ89dmg0RNZ+qonb5lwouu+PIsWh76IdTtyZcM1u3 uHLK/Gk3GTdPUmIpzkg01GIuKk4EAI5nK/V+AgAA
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrKIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUiON1OTdfjckyYwe0uC4vTx/YyOzB6LFny kymAMYrLJiU1J7MstUjfLoErY9fZlewFR4wqnr/4w9zAuFC7i5GTQ0LARGLRifesELaYxIV7 69m6GLk4hAR6mSTW/XjBDOHMZ5K4c2gFO0iVsIC0RNeFu2AdLAKqEutmngPq4OBgE9CSOLDG CCQsIqAo8f54KyOIzSxgLHH6wDN2kBJeAVuJCX8KQcKcAuoS8/uWQu1ayCTR/GAPI8R4d4mt d55BHSQu8XzzMiYQm1dAUOLH5HssEDOdJa5tOscygVFgFpLULCSpWUDrmAU0Jdbv0ocIa0ss W/iaGSIsLbH8HwdEWEOidc5cdhxKFjByrGIUKErNSay00EssKMhJ1UvOz93ECAr1hsK0HYxN y60OMQpwMCrx8EqsjQkTYk0sK67MPcQowcGsJML7ag9QiDclsbIqtSg/vqg0J7X4EONERmCo TWSWEk3OB0ZiXkm8oYmJgYmxsZmxsbmJOS2FlcR5K1b5hwkJpCeWpGanphakFsEcxcTBKdXA yMxW2zFNukHcJO1H/m6ufpZJBc7SiWbv70ndY4p6KSzBfmviJLs9+ix/TTMPp/bGtJ64v85l 1Z0qpVf/nTYHX/MRLUpcZHFDOUZfIrNTzfmixIOp+xt3vZvqsa1tnqdhxUSfohu7FvY2r99e F/3vfENn98eZZzhmlTlUzd9YfiIl/lfhGmVnJZbijERDLeai4kQA5SyzpugCAAA=
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/M_h7gziLjp3pziqESOdX_oJpCYc>
Cc: "=?utf-8?Q?v6ops=40ietf.org?=" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 22:53:01 -0000

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 (farmer@umn.edu) wrote:

On 11/3/15 02:02 , Lorenzo Colitti wrote:  
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 4:40 PM, David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu  
> <mailto:farmer@umn.edu>> 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: farmer@umn.edu  
Office of Information Technology  
University of Minnesota  
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815  
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952  
================================================  

_______________________________________________  
v6ops mailing list  
v6ops@ietf.org  
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops