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

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 8:59 AM Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Regarding misconfigs and crashing in general, DHCP has been around for a
> long time. This means that people understand how it works - i.e.
> misconfigs can usually be solved quickly - and the implementations are
> generally pretty robust - i.e. crashes are rare and if you need
> resilience, you can use multiple separate servers / relays (a
> protocol-layer feature).
>

But it's not DHCPv4 we're actually talking about but the robustness IPv4 to
a failure of DHCPv4. So let's be clear, Philip is proposing reducing the
robustness of IPv4 in the presence of IPv6, at least the robustness of
on-link communications with IPv4. Whereas using the flag only reduces the
robustness of IPv4 in the presence of the IPv6-Only Flag. While I'm fine
with either option, many people objected to tying IPv4 and IPv6 together,
but which of these two options does more violence to IPv4?

Thanks


-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================