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

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Mon, 17 August 2020 15:32 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 89B963A10DB for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 08:32:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.281
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.281 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 s3-ev_9Km2eQ for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 08:32:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp4-g21.free.fr (smtp4-g21.free.fr [IPv6:2a01:e0c:1:1599::13]) (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 594E33A0EC8 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 08:32:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2a01:e35:2e59:ce10::da3d:a356] (unknown [IPv6:2a01:e35:2e59:ce10::da3d:a356]) by smtp4-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 768E919F5C6; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 17:31:59 +0200 (CEST)
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
References: <159736181150.2650.7599523170218973622@ietfa.amsl.com> <690bfa0c-0f82-d668-a7da-f85532630492@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2ytnD3HMy+BmadLS=PJFsB8YKqf9kevbwZJxLe8b1O-g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <267127b3-4da7-58de-4d83-2086dc73da9c@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 17:31:59 +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: <CAKD1Yr2ytnD3HMy+BmadLS=PJFsB8YKqf9kevbwZJxLe8b1O-g@mail.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/y7Q3sON6OIFHxnPp7P3owUmcBWo>
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 15:32:05 -0000


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
>