Re: IPv4 traffic on "ietf-v6ONLY"

Markku Savela <msa@moth.iki.fi> Thu, 16 November 2017 10:40 UTC

Return-Path: <msa@moth.iki.fi>
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 888E2127909 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 02:40:00 -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 9cFc-qcrUk_g for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 02:39:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from moth.iki.fi (moth.iki.fi [212.16.111.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B20B0128B27 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 02:39:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [130.188.13.201] (201.13.vtt.fi [130.188.13.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: msa) by moth.iki.fi (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 823BD2A00B4 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 12:38:30 +0200 (EET)
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>
From: Markku Savela <msa@moth.iki.fi>
Message-ID: <85f11a44-6fb1-2a31-193c-bc2d6b42f52b@moth.iki.fi>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 12:39:51 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <A6BA33CC-32F7-4EA0-A288-2C3B549BC9F0@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/99Wr-lP6HC3N4bfykeg8cNggYyY>
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 10:40:00 -0000

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"...