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

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Tue, 01 December 2015 00:48 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 7DFFE1B34C2 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 16:48:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.31
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.31 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_MED=-2.3, 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 kuUA_nWh0KXv for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 16:48:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vs-w.tc.umn.edu (vs-w.tc.umn.edu [134.84.119.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17EC21B34C1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 16:48:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-f172.google.com (mail-io0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by vs-w.tc.umn.edu (UMN smtpd) with ESMTP (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:48:23 -0600 (CST)
X-Umn-Remote-Mta: [N] mail-io0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172] #+LO+TS+TR
X-Umn-Classification: local
Received: by iofh3 with SMTP id h3so194482266iof.3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 16:48:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=reply-to:subject:references:to:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=kxV8DVs/78gTr5pK5sR8kdzsmtiOXyyHMwDxfSoIbuw=; b=Rm1S0RJ44kWEcQZxWC+DXCjAd2n83lYd91jOjSt3mfLQoywk9Nrj5OWubuIIFoxdrx NdaNKT8HLGUJjH0PaNv//7RZ3i8u4q1zC+rdAAn7HVqruwkGfT/q+UWvslS/I0kXm2Sa 6HfQl9GKvBddmNnncxpCTnRNMnmpFTparCkSo=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:reply-to:subject:references:to:cc:from :organization:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kxV8DVs/78gTr5pK5sR8kdzsmtiOXyyHMwDxfSoIbuw=; b=QnWNI0CuKXXLNJz62u19g6JH94Mz/EP84P1NBTVfMCIbqDWQGaE+ov/pwhpQOtH++i ZjDsvg8pcSQEIyfHXxF5eiBL8nimMQyiMDlZGRsUZMtL3at7rVLefcTL1rE93BR2bhuQ MPEBiHEMqUqMImoKL2k+zm/zgx2QIoAN3cKnRKA97AMnpSbXlBz2OxGv48Mepc6tMKad BfwfF8x9fvC7VZsfbeKvrEW0rcGIaFbq7WRuSkj8NFidQg26NG5l3F0HGis8meN+vnD1 w1HP23aZpwRv6AQkmnuRXYvZGmZAHNrY8nefHoXGzm6PKmj7hwDwqHxbmFb7gDioFp0j CcTQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlf+nFyq/5f+979UKotPZA6baNC/o7rcS0eiWpKtffLYjk3HIEnAsTwK8BFjb1UznKa/8iv/pTeNI8Ux1BcsIf5kexC+2aj3rpwHLLXqXaBSjIj92LX/tG10E8PIGVt213RT/SE
X-Received: by 10.107.133.227 with SMTP id p96mr63354952ioi.1.1448930903435; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 16:48:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.107.133.227 with SMTP id p96mr63354940ioi.1.1448930903270; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 16:48:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from x-10-104-129-50.uofm-secure.wireless.umn.edu ([2607:ea00:107:2001:642a:ae96:eca7:dd8f]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 26sm18652045iod.9.2015.11.30.16.48.21 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 30 Nov 2015 16:48:21 -0800 (PST)
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> <etPan.565cd348.212cccb9.480@dschinazi.apple.com>
To: David Schinazi <dschinazi@apple.com>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Organization: University of Minnesota
Message-ID: <565CEE53.3080906@umn.edu>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:48:19 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <etPan.565cd348.212cccb9.480@dschinazi.apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/NwAyC0JKLwP7tgh47g8fIp7v5oQ>
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
Reply-To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
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, 01 Dec 2015 00:48:26 -0000

I don't want to specify a limit or even recommend networks set limits. 
However, no specific limit or not recommending a limit, does not mean 
its reasonable for a host to expect an unlimited number of addresses 
either.  If you can find a good way to communicate that I'll be happy.

On 11/30/15 16:52 , David Schinazi wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
================================================