Re: IPv4 traffic on "ietf-v6ONLY"

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 16 November 2017 14:07 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 9D3AC1294F0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 06:07:03 -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 f0XMfPyipzy3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 06:07:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.13]) (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 1937C12954B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 06:06:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id vAGE6vwx120260 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 15:06:57 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 0CE83204647 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 15:06:57 +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 F19B7202775 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 15:06:56 +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 vAGE6tIF031520 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 15:06:56 +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>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b5e869b6-5b58-b337-2bb8-9bb9c99c98e4@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 15:06:54 +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: <85f11a44-6fb1-2a31-193c-bc2d6b42f52b@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/ipv6/8hAkcJmXsnJqe1ohUDo8DDRsGz8>
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 14:07:04 -0000


Le 16/11/2017 à 11:39, Markku Savela a écrit :
> 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"...

Advisory sounds good.

We could also consider our Terminology before calling Host or Network 
"IPv6 Only".

And, I am not opposing full IPv6 together with full IPv4 on ietf SSID, 
which is what happens now.

I do disagree when a critical access plug, such as Ethernet in Terminal 
Room, refuses ping 8.8.8.8.

Alex

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