Re: IPv4 traffic on "ietf-v6ONLY"

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Thu, 16 November 2017 22:55 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
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 B87E6126C0F for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 14:55:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 20fYFkciqBmR for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 14:55:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [149.20.64.53]) (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 223B01250B8 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 14:55:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 454893B00B6; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 22:55:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19865160041; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 22:55:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 042C8160087; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 22:55:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id yxOrQojbBXp7; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 22:55:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [172.30.42.89] (c27-253-115-14.carlnfd2.nsw.optusnet.com.au [27.253.115.14]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5F507160041; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 22:55:26 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: IPv4 traffic on "ietf-v6ONLY"
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <m1eFMB5-0000FzC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 09:55:24 +1100
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5895250E-29CE-4BB5-998F-EB2F79653FA8@isc.org>
References: <f9805855-68cf-a3e8-a13f-c6ac31b09058@gmail.com> <bbd4e1d2-047f-6758-76f8-fd591c51dad7@gmail.com> <D631CE54.8C0F5%lee@asgard.org> <m1eEvEP-0000G3C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <5655992F-737A-4223-A917-63CAD6DF7A1D@cisco.com> <m1eEvku-0000F7C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAN-Dau0OSqxYWhV4F0MuJFWWfQBA+ntHaPhTbKTtZxYkLmhbGw@mail.gmail.com> <m1eFMB5-0000FzC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-4@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/3AWBoP6Ar_f1VtmQPm2RUFqy5_s>
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: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 22:55:37 -0000

I suspect we will see hosts turning off IPv4 apart from DHCPv4 discover when they see
RAs and they don’t get responses to DHCPv4 discover in a few years time.  You don’t
have to bring up IPv4 link-local.

There will be a check box that says “IPv4 link-local with IPv6” or something like that.
It will default on for a few releases then the vendors will switch it to off by default.  The
IETF really doesn’t have to do anything.  The OS vendors will do this all by themselves.

Mark

> On 17 Nov 2017, at 2:34 am, Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-4@u-1.phicoh.com>; wrote:
> 
>> I'm not saying that a rogue signal to turn off IPv4 isn't a problem. Just
> if your willing to ignore rogue IPv6 deployment, then worrying about a
>> rogue signal to turn off IPv4 seems kind of selective.
> 
> If you want your 'no IPv4' signal to be ignored, then by all means make it
> part of some IPv6 signalling protocol.
> 
> Nobody needs yet another attack vector.
> 
> Of course, eventually, there will be so little IPv4, that not getting a 
> DHCPv4 lease quickly is a good signal to stop trying. But that's quite a few
> years down the road.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka@isc.org