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

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Tue, 03 November 2015 09:16 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 DD43B1B3096 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 01:16:07 -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 AMK9HVcAmY_u for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 01:16:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vs-m.tc.umn.edu (vs-m.tc.umn.edu [134.84.119.120]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 157661B3098 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 01:15:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-f170.google.com (mail-io0-f170.google.com [209.85.223.170]) by vs-m.tc.umn.edu (UMN smtpd) with ESMTP (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 03:15:55 -0600 (CST)
X-Umn-Remote-Mta: [N] mail-io0-f170.google.com [209.85.223.170] #+LO+TS+TR
X-Umn-Classification: local
Received: by iofz202 with SMTP id z202so12418087iof.2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 01:15:55 -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=MoE+bN9V2OhLSE9ESrcqOFTHnqCxdO3iB4dQaLW3o/4=; b=W6BtTFYYI+8xxh2VBVykqn0yoL+gCxCYueGeL433nU2i64WM1YtokeUt5+BRqqMlnh dCQEuRR5M5a6ZfMqITgRwtoXdvqleThWoHZJQKeiEfo4lwxGOwAIjHndkuPfYuI1/PjZ acjXddHVheOZvmxKnDfLjdAywMkIK3rFT3vAU=
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=MoE+bN9V2OhLSE9ESrcqOFTHnqCxdO3iB4dQaLW3o/4=; b=S7Ieb+NuC718CuyhXCgTNCBx+KX9xFBwG18OLHbLhI13WKZTZ+loOPlqGJy5LH9fLd HuvaTg7ULnOy1Ou48ycEejsWZoSD60+qM75aZUbNb9xY5cMCuHEvL/o9f2pFz1n2biik KHM23w1HcoLje8XsVVESMrPvILRNzkJ841JhUncQcTOtD1XEnocgVvzzS0zfJCUeGsm3 t+AY/gYYq3ulh7mTPO/Ehg2mH8U25jWxP77S5x44qrq31AyIOhy9I2QoCR2x1R5dscLj uHmJSJ4AudpFLN15r5G2DnRxkqx2LrYBC2Wr21FkT4Lcuvi/A26vHyXkQtKEOBaCqlED zoig==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnDOWd7u9FwHtP7OvcEA9G/V7eTZp+5ivqIv16dlVXWdb1zl/ChJos6S2EWghYr2ksCKTLT8jfihVOsqycfZ+YUhnswcqMSnEsK63R57uzL1tPSjfnJ46uayUrodyIvZ0m9ZKEF
X-Received: by 10.107.18.163 with SMTP id 35mr27235677ios.93.1446542155481; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 01:15:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.107.18.163 with SMTP id 35mr27235668ios.93.1446542155305; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 01:15:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from x-134-84-0-209.vpn.umn.edu (x-134-84-0-209.vpn.umn.edu. [134.84.0.209]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j10sm7272838igx.13.2015.11.03.01.15.53 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Nov 2015 01:15:53 -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>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Organization: University of Minnesota
Message-ID: <56387AFB.9030308@umn.edu>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 03:14:35 -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: <CAKD1Yr3g2Q3kYQtKm_49kqCC-mGhrdo-Yfoa8Qx_ZyGe+YfVJw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/tc0SeWY44kOgkIu2uSzd4UNBXxk>
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, 03 Nov 2015 09:16:08 -0000

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
================================================