IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-conn-status-00.txt

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 05 February 2014 14:18 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A84671A015B for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 06:18:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
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 AvOFt6lBNPOk for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 06:18:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og107.obsmtp.com (exprod7og107.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.167]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 615301A0147 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 06:18:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob107.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUvJISBy8y28ymGlaKpJoGUbhWwAa30FR@postini.com; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 06:18:49 PST
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC4021B82E3 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 06:18:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A419D190052; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 06:18:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 06:18:48 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CF184487.18206%praspati@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 09:18:46 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <D3DCF5DD-549F-4F73-B33E-8F6A428606BD@nominum.com>
References: <20140204093611.4914.51694.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52F0F3C2.20807@viagenie.ca> <4B094E1A-431F-4F2B-9004-37D6D12BE8F8@nominum.com> <52F0F8F4.4060905@viagenie.ca> <EEEC392B-7B7B-4AAE-BE24-AEC944DFABFA@nominum.com> <CF17B34D.17390%praspati@cisco.com> <07C71B9E-3D2B-4714-9A5C-67C51B9F028F@nominum.com> <CF183474.17FEB%praspati@cisco.com> <48ADF973-C96B-415D-BA95-0EE5311114E2@nominum.com> <CF184487.18206%praspati@cisco.com>
To: "Prashanth Patil (praspati)" <praspati@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-conn-status-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 14:18:50 -0000

On Feb 5, 2014, at 9:15 AM, Prashanth Patil (praspati) <praspati@cisco.com> wrote:
> The desire was to better manage configuration sent
> down to the host, if possible. Especially if I started dual stack, see my
> IPv6 working great and decide to turn off IPv4.

It's unlikely that anybody would ever do that.   Most end users don't know the difference, and those that do are probably wise enough to realize that if the network configuration is working, changing it is as likely to cause problems as improvements.

More likely the network configuration would change as the result of a software update.   The software update would probably reconfigure the network anyway, so the problems would come out in the wash.   A software update that disables IPv4 by default when it is available on the network seems vanishingly unlikely.

More likely is that the network will stop providing IPv4, and the host will become IPv6-only by virtue of that change.

Are you seeing operational demand for this functionality?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email