IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IPv4 traffic on "ietf-v6ONLY"

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-4@u-1.phicoh.com> Thu, 16 November 2017 15:34 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-bCE2691D2@u-1.phicoh.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 71517129687 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 07:34:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 K8K_9Q5dRhpJ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 07:34:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (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 1CB6012956C for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 07:34:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) (Smail #157) id m1eFMB5-0000FzC; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 16:34:07 +0100
Message-Id: <m1eFMB5-0000FzC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IPv4 traffic on "ietf-v6ONLY"
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-4@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-bCE2691D2@u-1.phicoh.com
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>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 16 Nov 2017 07:42:24 -0600 ." <CAN-Dau0OSqxYWhV4F0MuJFWWfQBA+ntHaPhTbKTtZxYkLmhbGw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 16:34:04 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/5hWf0wxSTFJnkPAZsCxH6gXi0wc>
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 15:34:12 -0000

>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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email