Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 22:57:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> To: rpaulo@me.com Subject: Re: Enable IPv6 Privacy Extensions by default Message-ID: <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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201706140257.v5E2vRDE029173>