Re: IPv4 traffic on "ietf-v6ONLY"

[Mark Andrews <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: [phone]              INTERNET: [e-mail]