IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: New Version Notification for draft-hinden-ipv4flag-00.txt

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Sat, 18 November 2017 08:47 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 D76DC126B7E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 00:47:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 Y9XnzTYvLnon for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 00:47:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x236.google.com (mail-io0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::236]) (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 E86161200C1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 00:47:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io0-x236.google.com with SMTP id x63so11082909ioe.6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 00:47:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=UyvP6VsyM0l8PHR0hAvRiwuSTQ9yoxUYOL3fOK8/UUo=; b=UduEtRWIr8jCrM1367viCnyCP9akbDmBHSvv6mF25SslwEY2Rx3itsS1DU95eVxkUa Gv4yW1kWRWP+FVr2YoNl1kLsJsXENa+En3en4C7B23u3w61DnH1LVYR1HxMXGmgv6hsJ 7HNNfIG8RP4u6roKW5yajCSd8T9XfoXlIg+1j2Xyt/9Xb9/5IZGFBmDUcfx7NqKx/6Nj GjFqO174OWHgyyQwzPkK11D7r3o6nnewjnW8N8KFgUY+/UMZsBCAN/OZYoPMlApBUGg/ 6PSZakBp34HstNrPN2Xsn5qolKC1/aU6pHuZK0nRs13z5eExL1J5JygSU6BFsGavUqrX nkRg==
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=UyvP6VsyM0l8PHR0hAvRiwuSTQ9yoxUYOL3fOK8/UUo=; b=P10QHZS4VDsvsQ95QcayGMbx0x1MEjJCiCdf6TxAaLBVnb5URzsAcS5ayp/a8kytIo FSeSU/MgYYt8BYOrM3dWF0CF06xLTqKmEIOLowE/NwNDS3ncxm2+ForCBrxDaEiYijHs 9Io9I58LvyHypznFhLqdMNjB8i7C2x/ml1AvAyN/CQu3TFTdWx58dWBrrGd4kAvqE7r2 ES7H7ucdiAcPTD3kS51WoqxzsA4Wdq88o0DxwovnYuOvbJW1M+Yi9e0CLRsocqWPfVsP ryIOBq4jzo4F7CigBqreUtBxYaLrRhab2e1RYP4P2TTx3VyYTS1vAmAuJ9k/Yl9CtZYd yl6A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX54wdJNVM3BXCXjLq5TtTnAtTNKF+TqLVWbgov3wTzjOAY98GDy MZUncUxVFWsZztIAsgN9xbu1H8SMgGy83ZhcHz3d3sC4
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMbYq0mnLzfxJoAH2kgd8zKuZGtlMxcfqpjN6ebrC5sISpQPwC4kYqEHN3CKuwo6zk5iY+aJxjI+lrO2Xm4XY6Y=
X-Received: by 10.107.16.206 with SMTP id 75mr6179058ioq.83.1510994823839; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 00:47:03 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.16.155 with HTTP; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 00:46:42 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <79680F90-1F77-4934-9A1A-2B0DE9B43525@google.com>
References: <151090059151.22321.3357672601322845792.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <E838C63E-7612-4AA4-9375-854C184D699E@gmail.com> <4393db44-6427-5905-c3b4-60a546f88807@gont.com.ar> <0F60023D-9EDA-4C5D-9ABB-27BEAD294780@gmail.com> <5CFC106B-E118-4576-9D0C-F9A59289A7E1@google.com> <05978309-F55F-4E1E-BDCE-B14352FC654E@gmail.com> <79680F90-1F77-4934-9A1A-2B0DE9B43525@google.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 17:46:42 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr3vqJB9_virMp7+uH2zOYLDM+XNf=L1OihN0DdXzCNobA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-hinden-ipv4flag-00.txt
To: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113eda96bc0a90055e3de50a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/3PUJDil9iBDyfEw6b7K80IYlX-E>
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: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 08:47:07 -0000

On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 11:20 AM, james woodyatt <jhw@google.com> wrote:

> Wouldn’t you think setting 4=1 to be a good idea in that case? Alas, it’s
> not. If we do that, then any dual-stack hosts on a network with an
> IPv4-only CE router will shut off their IPv4 activity, and they will not
> get any IPv6 service through us. This is probably not what anyone wants, so
> we would of course never ever, not in a million years, never send 4=1 in
> our RA messages.
>

Yep, a single flag won't work unless all routers agree on it. What about an
option that signified there was no IPv4 on the network? If the option is
sent by any of the routers on the link, then hosts would not attempt IPv4
configuration.

Not sure how that would support IPv4 becoming available once the option has
been set. Also, not clear how to deal with the DOS scenario where a rogue
RA disables all IPv4 on the network until the end of time.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email