IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 11 May 2019 20:35 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 DFFA8120075 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 May 2019 13:35:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 zztPVB0p3BM6 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 May 2019 13:35:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x62b.google.com (mail-pl1-x62b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C53B12004D for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 May 2019 13:35:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x62b.google.com with SMTP id p15so4424930pll.4 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 May 2019 13:35:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6g59OWoOzn9/j2S6XmGho66kxCtGMinvd2LPbbleXAs=; b=ruGeuPeDpaNWj/KxWoyqItfykgj/kUPQxogvGvTnQ7pd6aqgJH1TjE9nsuKfCfC9aA SNyujdyll5bsza/oS/za3D7dRo2Ehj3x4B52mlkjrDF0+SgbrVJ7WjaU1GlvpXPGy6F+ j4fVx710HlJgbx9nYavNnDIWeEq9ROTgfo/p3qnO3Ms+MpkyBHh+mIVF2x0AqVSUH4Jm oCg7TZ56pIkG4Sjg6cYofLZ4bDgt9HsRieQAZ1EdjVyQazM3qfF19bK2/Pm+aa/FWHuT Cp0UyVWs021A8LFkz1a0YyaIjVkfMFNfMAQulYehGuezoKNas45PUg+AfEPVUmpshTF4 RKHA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=6g59OWoOzn9/j2S6XmGho66kxCtGMinvd2LPbbleXAs=; b=o/SsYg+pRt2RfoSeeC+EpTQNNwKETKaCXZC/AkQtIUq2HKn06DxYF3++9gZgEV8yVr IMvzH+NCfg2qvgZp6FQbIE1wecch97egcam9l7bwTZ2RaTvORy9v3KuJnzBcp+hwxcCl tXLWD5hNTgePB+3j8wcLM9TPBaVgw3mLRSR7ledKCaWD24oUSXDPnI3ded9R7QOIhBmo eDgrfkB8ROk9AgjD/g34S1gBW6gOaf0thygGpaqS8PkpOoFF/qWnkG4gSkaI+sc3Dym1 DAkxWJSiLhdf+AtCmjN++4d5narw7b2eer2WttNZeVXXI/itceLiRwwghyXbdsKM8ZFe L5Jg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX56edzJsX31ElVNMk010x2dLyGnvAUdO/pgR0fzPqEAx6iNApT 1KlB4D9QQs1Tluuc0AKC0ozJLYnl
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyw/akSE2HCbfT93MBonasn4tmhvlEqrY5/TaD0YF8x7/B+TyPLwuVXSeExriApP/UFcu/0Og==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:8ec4:: with SMTP id x4mr12762602plo.249.1557606943623; Sat, 11 May 2019 13:35:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([118.148.72.205]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v2sm2056071pgr.2.2019.05.11.13.35.40 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 11 May 2019 13:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <F8BFFCAD-E58E-4736-8A1C-56579B6F6032@employees.org> <a2465e81-a17f-ab48-efda-20fe12a70077@foobar.org> <30239E0C-C444-4A7E-8342-AEE47BF8A2BB@employees.org> <8b9fd743-bfcc-525c-98f6-154f3fa713cc@foobar.org> <CAO42Z2zEWvt9NyemMb8H0AEvPvmNSDGa4wcXiS6n5yRxNFCHQg@mail.gmail.com> <c7e18765-be04-6494-8193-984dbccb520b@foobar.org> <CANMZLAYh+V57yrWOzmUyjSMK0g95u1D5_GZmyZBMOMKAZnrnCg@mail.gmail.com> <3F474511-6FE3-4A0A-9B84-7C37F08FBB5D@steffann.nl> <E352C226-C708-4418-BCDE-10525CAB109A@jisc.ac.uk> <652fb10e-b8ce-0151-a9a0-62d2378caed2@gmail.com> <0079c716-d56c-7199-f493-f5e56e1307ae@foobar.org> <b33de303-eaca-f7f6-804e-2c9343eb92a1@gmail.com> <6C4ABEF1-2565-4BA9-9FC5-5B3C45A719AD@gmail.com> <c2222416-6491-1906-a403-d012777a4b38@gmail.com> <CABNhwV0-SdKZqQa4z9jhpc8h1Eq=8UxRhtvHt1==BYEMTVRjug@mail.gmail.com> <96790121-7D50-4C6F-924F-87065B989E44@gmail.com> <ccab3694-54f2-bdd1-f8ac-cb159dbc0a81@gont.com.ar>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fdc4439e-1ec8-b394-8037-04f0b821346f@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 May 2019 08:35:38 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ccab3694-54f2-bdd1-f8ac-cb159dbc0a81@gont.com.ar>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/1viXAwwu_i4AqHqivVZ8BOUzh4s>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sat, 11 May 2019 20:35:46 -0000

On 05-May-19 00:58, Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 4/5/19 01:53, Bob Hinden wrote:
>> Gyan,
>>
>>> On May 3, 2019, at 3:53 PM, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Do we or anyone in the WG know of any enterprise that is thinking of going IPv6 only.  I don't.  
>>
>> Yes, Microsoft.   It was stated in 6man several meetings ago that they were planning IPv6 Only and that this was a mechanism that would be a useful tool.
> 
> The question is probably why not use IPv4 to disable IPv4. Entangling
> one protocol with another generally leads to increased complexity, and
> interesting attack vectors.
> 
> I wonder why, if the issue is really a layer 2- one (e.g., stations
> being awaken unnecessarily), the problem is not solved at layer 2- --
> e.g. filtering at layer to, based on the Ether Proto.
> 
> Thoughts?

I think the draft already considers both of those arguments.

   Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email