Over-utilisation of v6 neighbour slots
dougb at dougbarton.us
Tue Oct 22 05:56:42 CEST 2013
Has anyone communicated directly with the Apple folks on this issue?
On 10/21/2013 01:37 PM, Phil Mayers wrote:
> On 21/10/2013 21:19, Cutler James R wrote:
>> 4. Does Apple's approach to IPv6 privacy addresses properly support
>> the intent of privacy addresses?
>> My tentative answer is, "Yes, and we need to learn to cope."
> The general approach perhaps, but the rollover timing is way, way too
> aggressive IMO. It should be on a timer, not driven by PHY wake events.
> Even 300 seconds would be an improvement over the behaviour we're seeing.
> As to "we need to learn to cope" - lots of networks have huge amounts of
> capital investment which can't just be ripped out and replaced overnight
> because Apple have decided to be aggressive with address rollovers. If
> the main outcome is for FIB-pressured sites to disable IPv6 on OUIs
> registered to Apple, it's a retrograde step ;o)
> Maybe we need a "neigbour un-advert" ICMPv6 message that the old
> addresses could be torn down with.
More information about the ipv6-ops