Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 22:14:21 -0700 From: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@me.com> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Enable IPv6 Privacy Extensions by default Message-ID: <1497417261.2220.5.camel@me.com> In-Reply-To: <201706140257.v5E2vRDE029173@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <20170611215904.4612ee41@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> <D05BDD5A-F7ED-4DFE-8835-DE444A12C771@lists.zabbadoz.net> <20170612131912.42537b13@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> <1497408664.2220.3.camel@me.com> <201706140257.v5E2vRDE029173@hergotha.csail.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2017-06-13 at 22:57 -0400, Garrett Wollman wrote: > In article <1497408664.2220.3.camel@me.com>, rpaulo@me.com writes: > > > I don't see any reason why we shouldn't have privacy addresses > > enabled > > by default. In fact, back in 2008 no one voiced their concerns. > > Back in 2008 most people hadn't had their networks fall over as a > result of MLD listener report implosions when a thousand machines > report (via multicast, natch) their eight[1] single-member > solicited-node multicast groups in the space of a few seconds. > > -GAWollman > > [1] Assuming the vendor actually implemented the thing correctly. > Some of us have seen what happens when one machine reports eight > hundred single-member solicited-node multicast groups in the space of > a few milliseconds. Pretty sure these problems have been addressed by now, given the amount of computers, smart phones, tablets, etc. running with privacy extensions enabled. If you still think this is a big problem, then FreeBSD could simply implement CGA . -- Rui Paulo
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1497417261.2220.5.camel>