Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-v6only-08.txt

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Mon, 17 August 2020 15:42 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8781D3A1124 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 08:42:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.949, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 srds3StKD-Mp for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 08:42:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.228]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A87033A130D for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 08:41:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 07HFfvwM033197 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 17:41:57 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 8D99D2031A2 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 17:41:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.12]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82CDE201525 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 17:41:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.11.240.14] ([10.11.240.14]) by muguet1-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 07HFfuKE012226 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 17:41:57 +0200
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
References: <159736181150.2650.7599523170218973622@ietfa.amsl.com> <690bfa0c-0f82-d668-a7da-f85532630492@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2ytnD3HMy+BmadLS=PJFsB8YKqf9kevbwZJxLe8b1O-g@mail.gmail.com> <267127b3-4da7-58de-4d83-2086dc73da9c@gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <adca9f9a-cd12-3282-7f4c-6fe060bf3b0f@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 17:41:55 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <267127b3-4da7-58de-4d83-2086dc73da9c@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/9dY7zCRGoY9LTV0UQ2sjJB3S040>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-v6only-08.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 15:42:19 -0000

Also, I wanted to say.

I think you will disagree with my terminology proposals and that's fine.
  I will not argue any further.

We all work towards progressing towards deployment of IPv6 and this
draft and its potential implementation is a step forward.

I think the problem here is a much wider terminology problem.

Starting simply with 'IPv6', some people understand it as a service,
others as a stack of layers, others as a deployment strategy, others
simply as SLAAC, others as the other version of IP, and so on.  It's
then hard to agree about its '-only' variation.

I have first noticed that divergence in the long argumentations in v6ops
WG about 'IPv6-only' and the billions of devices.

And I dont think I can understand, and even less to speak like others
speak, when I think 'IPv6-only'.

So I will leave it there.

Alex

Le 17/08/2020 à 17:31, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
> 
> 
> Le 17/08/2020 à 14:48, Lorenzo Colitti a écrit :
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 9:40 PM Alexandre Petrescu 
>> <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com
>> <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> IPv6-only mode: a mode of operation of a computer whose IPv4 stack
>> has been removed from the running space and where IPv6 stack is
>> active.
>> 
>> 
>> The definition you propose will not work for this document for at 
>> least the following two reasons:
>> 
>> * A host that is IPv6-only by your proposed definition cannot 
>> implement DHCPv4, because DHCPv4 requires sending and receiving
>> IPv4 packets.
> 
> I agree.
> 
>> * In section 3 draft explains that the client can decide that only
>>  certain interfaces are IPv6-only. This means it could be using
>> IPv4 on other interfaces, and it would not meet your proposed
>> definition.
> 
> I agree with this as well.  Turning IPv4 off on some interface might 
> still leave it on on another interface.  In my tests I make sure the 
> only interface working has IPv4 disabled and IPv6 enabled.
> 
> Still, maybe it's just me.
> 
> The definition might promiss the term 'IPv6-only' for something it
> does not really satisfy.
> 
> If I order a Vanilla-only ice cream I will refuse the slightest trace
> of chocolate.
> 
> If it is 'IPv6-only' then there is no IPv4 address on any interface,
> and the whole IPv4 stack is removed.
> 
> What the draft calls 'IPv6-only' is something heading towards true 
> IPv6-only (more than dual stack) but still not reaching it.  It is 
> 'almost IPv6-only'.
> 
> So, maybe the term 'IPv6-only' is not appropriate.  Maybe 'almost 
> IPv6-only' is better(?)
> 
> Alex
> 
>> 
>> Cheers, Lorenzo
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list 
> dhcwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg