Re: IPv4 traffic on "ietf-v6ONLY"

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 16 November 2017 13:59 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.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 C886E129434 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 05:59:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.633
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.633 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 WddbTr5HHXAi for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 05:59:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.148]) (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 BC84F1293F3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 05:59:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id vAGDxfnn015514 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 14:59:41 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 238C8207E18 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 14:59:41 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 194C6207E0A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 14:59:41 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [132.166.85.78] ([132.166.85.78]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id vAGDxdUp019785 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 14:59:40 +0100
Subject: Re: IPv4 traffic on "ietf-v6ONLY"
To: ipv6@ietf.org
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> <0b565be0-e228-0879-ead5-3ba03e6d1c28@gmail.com> <m1eEwyn-0000GWC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <A6BA33CC-32F7-4EA0-A288-2C3B549BC9F0@cisco.com> <85f11a44-6fb1-2a31-193c-bc2d6b42f52b@moth.iki.fi> <f8bda5c3-072c-b0c9-5d46-97719cb0dbed@moth.iki.fi>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6a515876-c9ae-ffc0-b180-27931a2442a7@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 14:59:38 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f8bda5c3-072c-b0c9-5d46-97719cb0dbed@moth.iki.fi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/7VYPS8YKzup-FLIM9hkQXAEBrCU>
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 13:59:45 -0000

Le 16/11/2017 à 11:41, Markku Savela a écrit :
> On 16/11/17 12:39, Markku Savela wrote:
>> On 16/11/17 12:32, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
>>> While I do agree to RA being better than DHCP(v6) for the purpose 
>>> discussed here, I also agree with Philip wrt L-flag usage. PvD L-flag 
>>> = 0 would not prohibit a host from using IPv4 on the access.
>>>
>>> We might be better off defining a new flag that explicitly indicates 
>>> for host to ‘Suppress IPv4’.
>>>
>>
>> And, if the local network has multiple independent routers, this flag 
>> would be confusing, if one router says "Suppress IPv4", and the other 
>> provides IPv4 routing? A flag could just be "advisory"...
> 
> ...or, sorry.. is this discussion about WiFi only?

There is same IPv4 traffic on the Ethernet in Terminal Room too.  The 
Ethernet Terminal Room was not announced as "IPv6 only" or as "NAT64" 
but that's the way it acts: ping 8.8.8.8 blocked.

The question is whether Ethernet Terminal Room is configured as "IPv6 
only" or as NAT64.

(and yes, I did file tickets about this at the URL provided by Brian; 
and not only me filed such tickets).

Alex

> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------