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

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Tue, 03 November 2015 08:02 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 3FCEB1B2F40 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 00:02:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.388
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.388 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=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 iY5oechmyfzI for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 00:02:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yk0-x22a.google.com (mail-yk0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::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 990621B2F44 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 00:02:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ykft191 with SMTP id t191so8216814ykf.0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 00:02:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=EktLLjpRxQvRajT01ymLBLmEycrXZ15OmjTHbtaYpwk=; b=IX6pcxr+/1DaUZYQKlMnHFYLqvsON/BB9hAMvAl/JC39N9pep3ZKCGxLdvJvThewcl 8x/QK/z3ts4Ham3rQwOwjA+EWhDUAt5JkEtysoOLzWwdyKt+gltLfPFJrAM6aA10IXcj Za1iTVeQ++LgJ1R7Kox8V6m89SBQzcqQvLOZOH2DhaBkWiIzY5KG8kFgCX+F+ULc0NY1 KmP2Fk0Kdx0CAihBbJ7ACxB+NrxzOZhZNPTea+zGDy6O18VRgRXd06sn1qfDL7c9zZF/ hiLcV0T+U63xOsHiDi3veEHVDUb2hz4IyPB8Tz49kR23iFtP4aV+RPd4qNKI4+LjR2in COWg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=EktLLjpRxQvRajT01ymLBLmEycrXZ15OmjTHbtaYpwk=; b=YKIbgEKZHtc1eASTFi59dXnrZzSutOL14kmpc2/aNbcE407oUdMmJMEo2TvyB3+VDV 8ah5c8z5M5ohYDHfeO8L05tZu2Y6wJbkoEW8C0kLNYmr3zv+nQ6SEMzO3V9OFsZUYiQr UQvJubOxgtV6HA9XxLUUP0fsqkc5E6x59LfonXSsox2Vs+TENdyUgH2/YXWRUG/TZB8j qDE35NP4WOIXmZ+d+DjQ5gO5v5aePnw+ZfhguR6FSe4IXyZiRsef0hBwFgDUZSmu8e7u 2p1ypuHQ18C23Uu65Y7RolnhmoXlAIfkC7FtKWfsEbmmBIyrA9UKrAe4C+fs+j2dQbgb 7u9w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQneRCCfsVVvqPkbOZa7iI85spM1FnXF+J+CpcXbsho6tRSEJdPARl4dRiQ0TWY53yTbTapU
X-Received: by 10.13.246.70 with SMTP id g67mr21591386ywf.116.1446537741812; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 00:02:21 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.87.197 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 00:02:02 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <563864DD.2010309@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>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:02:02 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr3g2Q3kYQtKm_49kqCC-mGhrdo-Yfoa8Qx_ZyGe+YfVJw@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0338d441c08f05239e50e3
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/N-LXTWrDhqN3CAtQY38NASmKWUo>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.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: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 08:02:24 -0000

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 4:40 PM, David Farmer <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)?