[168317] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Experiences with IPv6 and Routing Efficiency
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nick Hilliard)
Sun Jan 19 11:16:08 2014
X-Envelope-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 16:15:34 +0000
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
To: "Mukom Akong T." <mukom.tamon@gmail.com>, Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi>
In-Reply-To: <CAHDzDLA9zToxUGmbMLtbKzBidrSqc03Tg3+nptHmyhkhr-Vz1g@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 19/01/2014 04:08, Mukom Akong T. wrote:
> Just because you can have 2^64 possible hosts on a LAN still doesn't mean
> we through principles of good LAN design out the door. :-) So I'd say it's
> rather the fault of shoddy network design rather than address policy.
no, it's a problem with the number of addresses available on the LAN;
nothing to do with shoddy network design.
Each device on the LAN will have a certain amount of capacity for caching
neighbour addressing details. If some third party decides to send packets
to a massive number of addresses on that LAN, then the router which is
forwarding these packets will attempt to perform ND for these addresses.
This can trivially be used as a cache exhaustion attack, which can cause
regular connectivity on that LAN to be trashed.
Nick
