IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: problem statement [was Re: New Version Notification for draft-hinden-ipv4flag-00.txt]

Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net> Sat, 18 November 2017 20:25 UTC

Return-Path: <huitema@huitema.net>
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 04374124C27 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 12:25:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 bvO4uqZWn2lo for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 12:25:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx43-out1.antispamcloud.com (mx43-out1.antispamcloud.com [138.201.61.189]) (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 3F3E11200FC for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 12:25:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xsmtp05.mail2web.com ([168.144.250.245]) by mx1.antispamcloud.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <huitema@huitema.net>) id 1eG9gD-0004mi-II for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 21:25:34 +0100
Received: from [10.5.2.13] (helo=xmail03.myhosting.com) by xsmtp05.mail2web.com with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <huitema@huitema.net>) id 1eG9gA-0003xn-Ad for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 15:25:30 -0500
Received: (qmail 2580 invoked from network); 18 Nov 2017 20:25:28 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO [192.168.100.66]) (Authenticated-user:_huitema@huitema.net@[80.13.34.254]) (envelope-sender <huitema@huitema.net>) by xmail03.myhosting.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with ESMTPA for <ipv6@ietf.org>; 18 Nov 2017 20:25:28 -0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (15A432)
In-Reply-To: <649be36e-5006-7688-448f-bc2794d6a39c@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 21:25:18 +0100
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <19B39788-CEC6-478A-A303-7F42904533DF@huitema.net>
References: <151090059151.22321.3357672601322845792.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <E838C63E-7612-4AA4-9375-854C184D699E@gmail.com> <CAFU7BAQKoWPcEFQZgU3k_d0gUL4en6d2pyNq1V4RMNZ6HrSG8w@mail.gmail.com> <649be36e-5006-7688-448f-bc2794d6a39c@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: problem statement [was Re: New Version Notification for draft-hinden-ipv4flag-00.txt]
X-Originating-IP: 168.144.250.245
X-AntiSpamCloud-Domain: xsmtpout.mail2web.com
X-AntiSpamCloud-Username: 168.144.250.0/24
Authentication-Results: antispamcloud.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=168.144.250.0/24@xsmtpout.mail2web.com
X-AntiSpamCloud-Outgoing-Class: unsure
X-AntiSpamCloud-Outgoing-Evidence: Combined (0.15)
X-Recommended-Action: accept
X-Filter-ID: EX5BVjFpneJeBchSMxfU5snUWQNcinYl+CA90gVnPyUXv9krsgRhBn0ayn6qsUc7YAgODqM07LCG aCgxVhZftbgNzB/4Jkrw1eDLcif59fv4UJdSTt3DQ8ZQIEoDOhMzB98yDTitFWvbHwz9vKZpm3I5 mq5AFk9iXeoOoZGPBgSZ3JKVmi72ocgY5kMQSjs7Pk8VxOtUn7O9m8cCuN8HIa1B2N+xwNIm4bky rJMaAA8yXDZ4EHnDt87IyrZAC2/gfn4eyCwIWdDDlFG98+9qd+BFwYDEPnet1tXHsknHYhhwbzpt P1hS4Kj7E/EWE1j8sESBnZ29929fqpFFzBN0ceyPnEGyyfS0ggcDdodDMKpYg9ruAKOoPnwmy4wG 8XtJqWVYNxS4myu1gxnHJBnmumz49PzUWhdE3zEeQF2k5bdHrh2h0Pu50H7NzHw6NK3VYL8jvyeW A9EsRvV6CqjePBKOhcObZXWnkEw+6F9CGyZFjIToX6GLbbHCBsyyfoCLFQwbgMCItJaYYOhQRv6/ UGCCdcO9rYg2M7/KQ/lbg5vh9PobrbwB1Jj4vRnvuFdQKx3Zprq3ZEpafGy+zLjUntilh9dvYvV/ 5Pg3UZt3l4cobM5+AwD0A5qDgSPsXJ3GtlU9Sx4c4OycrwO9wG8u65nHEeB4hpRrmo/duzUUp/Jj EBKbJAt4fJDFRcLYgGwkesqyLhgq8qU3+sLgGjd2QXLYM3A6BXfvel8OEFDbU529jj6VuEkkQiOd 2CLFCAI+I5H9kml+5WbFWXP46fIup4j2lB9TLiDMfXuvSrucRXqq613YX/JpkaqfAljBKlD3psib JQz6bCR19sO/++nnSqCDBedeB75TJ0VuxRY+unEnaeycva4NRXu2m3j3Y8zB9xGo0bndvIE+SDBs cm+vLiZuZ5OAUoGBziSYFLZuu6wTRhJez+ibxiREoUwadL3g
X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@quarantine5.antispamcloud.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/78F0vl71_jnJGimbXLoFEvQD11U>
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 20:25:38 -0000

...
> 
> Indeed. If there is no serious problem, don't fix. What I seemed to hear
> in Singapore was that people weren't happy with just ignoring the small
> amount of residual IPv4 traffic on ietf-nat64 (about 1% in the measurement
> by Bob Hinden). However, from what I saw, most of it is layer 2 broadcast
> traffic, which is more of a burden for the infrastructure. We need to decide
> whether we care.

If people really care, they should just program the local routers and switches to block the IPv4 related multicast traffic. That will be much more direct than a bit in some RA.



> 
> (As to whether this belongs in 6man or sunset4, that's a secondary question.
> As for the other comments on this thread, I am too jet lagged to respond
> right now... later.)

How about a transition rule for dual stack implementations? If there is IPv6 connectivity, don’t bother trying to establish IPv4? Maybe qualify that rule with availability of a 6to4 prefix?

Yes, looks for something sunset4 should work on, if sunset4 is actually alive.

— Christian Huitema

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email