IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Usage of services without IPv6 Support

otroan@employees.org Wed, 22 April 2020 14:25 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3F4C3A0DF7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 07:25:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 y9bRAag-OTaW for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 07:25:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D7C63A10E5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 07:22:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (dhcp217197164175.blix.com [217.197.164.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 661514E11B1D; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 14:22:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0640F32D3256; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 16:22:34 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Subject: Re: Usage of services without IPv6 Support
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <r7pitm$2250$1@gal.iecc.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 16:22:33 +0200
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E0F6D290-D325-4CDC-A91F-0E540FEA8AF4@employees.org>
References: <ba1450e1-4288-7682-3e15-f36909f6a1fa@gmail.com> <1c4a6ad2-fc65-207a-6a89-558f6b86b0a1@gmail.com> <20200422013643.GU27494@kduck.mit.edu> <d1b18b6b-4e52-6975-0ac9-480ef67142d0@gmail.com> <r7pitm$2250$1@gal.iecc.com>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/0-AV_YIWpEeowU3s2gj0ywKahTs>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 14:25:18 -0000

>> You actually have a very point.
>> 
>> However I don't think it applies the very same way as IPv6. NFSv4 for 
>> example is not an relevant protocol for Internet, is not something that 
>> is exposed publicly, ...
> 
> Sure it is.  Lots of us do remote NFS mounts over the net to retrieve
> a few files.
> 
> To be blunt, refusing to use a service solely because it doesn't
> handle IPv6 would be self-defeating virtue signalling.  It won't
> change anyone's mind, it'll just get in the way of our work.  We
> should certainly keep pointing out all of the reasons that IPv6
> support is a good idea, e.g., no need ever to renumber again, no need
> for NAT, no problems with running out of 10/8 space, but let's keep
> our eye on the ball.

Indeed.

Actually the renumbering problem for IPv6 in home networks is a lot worse than for IPv4 home networks (that never renumber).
That's what you get for exposing the home network to global addressing.

Cheers,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email