IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] MAC table shortage in IPv6 networks caused by multiple IPv6 prefixes/addresses//FW: New Version Notification for draft-liu-v6ops-running-multiple-prefixes-01.txt

Andrew Yourtchenko <ayourtch@cisco.com> Fri, 11 July 2014 13:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ayourtch@cisco.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 F0E7A1B28EB for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 06:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.152
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 Hru_huNhFyDs for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 06:07:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.142.95]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 995081B282E for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 06:07:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2071; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1405084057; x=1406293657; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id: references:mime-version; bh=WLbE3eFrrq4HF70wU2qgmtuiZuKxOhRfFfmJu+zORh4=; b=SLzUnnvLdq6w3PJ6uPdG1mH6zOfewKyVjJwB1M8OmHqVg+AVQToNBgZV 71B5FGAc6/nQv2pb9KxETbPtRHfXbSvOqclJGMHz+iPmG2s/nap9iCKG+ ZBcWFHvicmrd9Di8Pst2OXtcN691eCgrd0wIu7hTx34JqeUxFZC79SvrV g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AoIHAM7gv1OtJV2S/2dsb2JhbABZgw5SWqwCAQEBBQFuk3AMh0ABgQoWdYQDAQEBAwEBAQE1AjQJAgULCxgjCycnCQYOBR6IHAgNxlAXhXqEAoVKB4RDAQScT5JRggKBRGqBRA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,643,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="60074123"
Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Jul 2014 13:07:36 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com [173.36.12.84]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6BD7HMn022377 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 11 Jul 2014 13:07:17 GMT
Received: from dhcp-10-149-0-20.cisco.com (10.149.0.20) by xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com (173.36.12.84) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 08:07:17 -0500
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 15:06:59 +0200
From: Andrew Yourtchenko <ayourtch@cisco.com>
X-X-Sender: ayourtch@ayourtch-mac
To: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <27F9B16E-6026-42CC-A0C6-64687C6997F0@puck.nether.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.00.1407111505260.77389@ayourtch-mac>
References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8EEA21@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8F1C32@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407091226000.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CFE32281.2067C%evyncke@cisco.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407091710020.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <alpine.OSX.2.00.1407091840270.99248@ayourtch-mac> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8F291C@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <alpine.OSX.2.00.1407101220310.93503@ayourtch-mac> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8F2AB4@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <alpine.OSX.2.00.1407111029250.37292@ayourtch-mac> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8F2AF9@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <27F9B16E-6026-42CC-A0C6-64687C6997F0@puck.nether.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (OSX 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-Originating-IP: [10.149.0.20]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/NQLPEajDoIRAnXmsbvPthzP7v4g
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] MAC table shortage in IPv6 networks caused by multiple IPv6 prefixes/addresses//FW: New Version Notification for draft-liu-v6ops-running-multiple-prefixes-01.txt
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 13:07:32 -0000

On Fri, 11 Jul 2014, Jared Mauch wrote:

> Apple believes the coexistence of slaac and dhcp6 are a problem and close defects as "3rd party problem won't fix" when raised with them.

Looks like this might be a useful addition to the 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-guidance-01#section-3.4, 
or, rather, one more problem in section 2 and reference it from section 
3.4.

--a

>
> Jared Mauch
>
>> On Jul 11, 2014, at 5:40 AM, "Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>>>> Now there are some enterprise/campus networks under real use or
>>>> considering using L2 networks. Some are aiming at better user isolation
>>>> through VLANs (some even consider QinQ mechanism); while some are
>>>> aiming less configuration/management than the traditional L3 networks.
>>>> So there would be thousands of hosts aggregated to the core switch
>>>> (normally there are two core switches stacked together, but only share one
>>> cache space).
>>>> As IPv6 is beginning real use, for example, some of the campus networks
>>>> are already dual-stack, and the majority of the hosts are Win 7, we
>>>> once observed in one campus that DHCPv6/SLAAC are both enabled, each
>>>> Win 7 host had 4 IPv6 addr (SLAAC+DHCPv6+Privacy+link-local)+1 IPv4 addr.
>>>
>>> If the majority of the hosts are Win 7, and are under the control of the
>>> administrator, this looks more like a misconfiguration rather than anything
>>> else: clear the "A" bit on the prefix, and they'll half the address usage - down
>>> to just link-local and DHCPv6-based.
>>
>> [Bing] I can hardly say SLAAC and DHCPv6 co-existing is a misconfiguration, but I agree DHCPv6-only deployment can partly relieve the problem.
>> However, even DHCPv6-only would have 2 IPv6 addr+1 IPv4 addr, which would cause approximately 5~8 times cache space than IPv4-only.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Bing
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email