Re: problem statement [was Re: New Version Notification for draft-hinden-ipv4flag-00.txt]

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Sun, 19 November 2017 22:37 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16F1612009C for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Nov 2017 14:37:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
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 d_DPRyw06C6s for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Nov 2017 14:36:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (mta-p7.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.207]) (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 CBEC01200C1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Nov 2017 14:36:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F693964 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Nov 2017 22:36:58 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p7.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p7.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uXFhLhUUAElc for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Nov 2017 16:36:58 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail-lf0-f70.google.com (mail-lf0-f70.google.com [209.85.215.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 035E182A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Nov 2017 16:36:57 -0600 (CST)
Received: by mail-lf0-f70.google.com with SMTP id m1so1640809lfj.11 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Nov 2017 14:36:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Gol83rEOhGyXILEaMKENGdWfwoQQ/mZLC9AiU5JJqSE=; b=IP76JKHs3MXlUGJfw4OwPu/wzMxAu+rpT10k4NNMbZihBpFJ0AOCUxG1R4T15+jNQ8 3tliScNlaceDGKRgI91R7LgZOcGs7LmUMGV1j4OW5+hTbXg0kxMexXJQKbc3ofIlm3Rm vlJkniY2dB9BTtb2Vcb9wqBd5ajOxxSTYLnUl8OaDm2ArcTpmMZabo4TonXWpaniq7ya hlIm/7O05psBnaSLAROxSUMd/f0oAxhRykR6IoC3FD7+ih0kfgd1r8eeW6MttkRBCdOV qHAA+5D220HUst+kL5Uf3bLGasMU6zVXa2SIsqD9ZCxft9QGnazuzkes/Yj71MwwzZ25 ZF6w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Gol83rEOhGyXILEaMKENGdWfwoQQ/mZLC9AiU5JJqSE=; b=Kjnkj7KXvK13+X15WGkAugBfjOLIeh4pa/fX+B1XDrshp7nTcOPCz+ctQ/H60rtXZ5 dskvL2ckv+p1K9AyON6iTlERZLvP1lDLiDbeteVq0NNw+HgZMc2D5HCA1ySQBXmGAf+R nhgD3Sy+APoLH8qb3TMT/G+hQHEVJhBMp+yIfqSZuqhUhfCYgCUM5+Oe3Z/BkWSTOyY0 IwioHCv82pej6QJQIF5A+t/fKXcjeyUOR6TaNGQPa8tEkahl9Hb8qlYWcd9i3N/m8SJS jipfbiHaECTqsKiiIGWPtRIyuFmHw5wN1mWtiB1dYUpLSOIjS5TnyfLkg6ROWrfV6VeF 7A9g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX44Rhgoyly+5gBZWytjZSb50hLmq4EdFHPf6EvcBx2DAHOVK4GA T4FGFmxT9n2XBc89f8Ov26/8rzNaLpj5mNaHZ+MrXF8VWlc/dXkzdvZHJ5eXfA6nu2fDtb/Ibnt yAQyVKLdgJp6uZlPh2FjvduWV
X-Received: by 10.46.23.144 with SMTP id 16mr3653280ljx.162.1511131016479; Sun, 19 Nov 2017 14:36:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMa7uHE+rYCxtQuwH8vffgJDQ4KyRxS/+f3Mk2GUhCtMYE03Lvbc/ZsAAb9b8D55ZTw1dQo41t54KViYXWrwl6g=
X-Received: by 10.46.23.144 with SMTP id 16mr3653272ljx.162.1511131016164; Sun, 19 Nov 2017 14:36:56 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.217.89 with HTTP; Sun, 19 Nov 2017 14:36:55 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <F26580ED-62B8-401F-83F7-882A26678454@consulintel.es>
References: <151090059151.22321.3357672601322845792.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <E838C63E-7612-4AA4-9375-854C184D699E@gmail.com> <CAFU7BAQKoWPcEFQZgU3k_d0gUL4en6d2pyNq1V4RMNZ6HrSG8w@mail.gmail.com> <649be36e-5006-7688-448f-bc2794d6a39c@gmail.com> <CAN-Dau3o=YCRJi1PDdc=KeDn-n=CLyAKUdS-zj_dtWaUyHYY0w@mail.gmail.com> <F26580ED-62B8-401F-83F7-882A26678454@consulintel.es>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 16:36:55 -0600
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau3_-tEn4urmSsS=ChynPP662x+Co6No7kOXfs-Gohd=Ug@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: problem statement [was Re: New Version Notification for draft-hinden-ipv4flag-00.txt]
To: Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c074a206d84bf055e5d9b17"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/1fbGcCUnHzEd08V20j6UTDIE4KA>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 22:37:00 -0000

On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 1:50 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <
jordi.palet@consulintel.es>; wrote:

> Agree with your analysis, but the problem I see is that many WiFi networks
> are very simple, even with high level of congestion, and they may not be
> able to apply such simple filters. Even home networks may have the same
> issues.
>
> One way or the other, hosts get updated frequently, but switches, APs and
> L2 infrastructure don’t, even CEs or small routers in many hotspots don’t
> get updated.
>
> Also, IPv4-only devices are typically never updated. For example, you buy
> today an IP camera, and is not easy to find one which is dual-stack. Of
> course, in this case the problem is different, because they will not work
> in a NAT64 IPv6-only network …
>
> Because most of this traffic is created by laptops, tablets and
> smartphones that are the ones with frequently get updated, may be the ideal
> solution will be something in the stack, not relaying in the router update
> (so not relaying in RA, options, etc.), that automatically detects the lack
> of IPv4 support (trying to avoid fake DHCP servers), so they automatically
> stop sending any IPv4 traffic, or even using IPv4 link-local?
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>

We're not going to be able drain the swamp of unmanaged networks and
devices.  They already have serious problems with rogue DHCP server, too
many broadcasts not letting battery powered devices sleep, security
problems like crazy, etc... Changing them to IPv6-only isn't going to
fundamentally fix their problems. In fact changing them to IPv6-only, I'm
afraid will only make their problems worse, not better.  I think IPv6-only
(tuning off IPv4) is a way forward for managed networks, not for unmanaged
networks. Unfortunately, I think unmanaged networks are better off with
dual-stack and keeping classic IPv4 support.

The open question in my mind is can a managed IPv6-only network support
unmanaged BYOD devices, that is my goal for this work. If both the network
and the devices are managed you should be able to do IPv6-only right now,
the 3G/LTE guys have shown that.  The open question is can we do the same
thing on managed WiFi and BYOD, with literally no control over the devices.

Thanks.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================