IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Running code (Was: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-03.txt)

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Tue, 30 October 2018 21:03 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
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 A8CC31276D0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 14:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.952
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.952 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 Fw97T_qD6MYq for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 14:03:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C125124408 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 14:03:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.52]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 051DF54815B; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 22:03:32 +0100 (CET)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id E7E0D440210; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 22:03:31 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 22:03:31 +0100
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Running code (Was: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-03.txt)
Message-ID: <20181030210331.rnwwn6sh23bgo4ot@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <0d6008a4-337b-2ccb-2d9f-837f786eca65@gmail.com> <bfa4397a-aa7a-1184-4147-4cbfbfd13603@si6networks.com> <8C587906-F0EE-4A61-9046-2BFAC52588C0@isc.org> <E8DE18B5-94FC-411C-A310-E49A382E0079@thehobsons.co.uk> <e0fa8fad1b4249c9af79788323b0a922@boeing.com> <3A03A073-72E2-43A8-90A4-5C29DF445361@thehobsons.co.uk> <27fdbd71125842d888c5136684bf6e7b@boeing.com> <9A4368D6-E4B1-474C-9838-B584AF6D70C8@thehobsons.co.uk> <m1gHUMI-0000I6C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <9e3f31a2-2a38-cb47-a7b0-73a4c3cbf21b@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9e3f31a2-2a38-cb47-a7b0-73a4c3cbf21b@gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/9TsnntxRq5m96t_bsd3npwRbXz4>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 21:03:39 -0000

Brian,

I think i would be happier with a stronger goal of the flag
relying less or not at all on heuristics of hosts.

Give me a reason why dual-stack hosts should want to do IPv4
on a subnet if there is no IPv4-only host and no router routing IPv4. 

This seems like the most simple case to discuss about and agree
what to do for it. TO me it seems that it would be great to
recognize this case and automatically disable IPv4 stack/interface
because of a flag from routers on all dual-stack hosts.

Cheers
    Toerless

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 08:43:40AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2018-10-31 02:47, Philip Homburg wrote:
> >> So, here's the challenge which you seem to be holding back from,
> >> write down the actual rules. No hand waving that "that's a good
> >> clue", but actual rules that "if you see <some observable state>
> >> then <do some specific action>".
> 
> If by "rules" you mean "a typical heuristic", sure. But there will
> be hosts that follow a different logic for their own good reasons.
> That simply isn't the IETF's business.
> 
> The draft is quite clear on this:
> 
>    Dual stack hosts that have a good reason to use IPv4, for example for
>    a specific IPv4 link-local service, can attempt to do so.  Therefore
>    respect of the IPv6-Only flag is recommended, not mandatory, for
>    hosts.
> 
> On 2018-10-31 04:18, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> ....
> > IMHO:
> > 
> > If the host sees the ipv6only flag from all IPv6 routers, it MUST NOT
> > perform IPv4 DHCP.
> 
> Who cares? Legacy hosts will try DHCP anyway. We don't want an updated
> host to waste spectrum on this, but that's a SHOULD NOT, because such
> traffic won't actually break anything.
> 
>     Brian
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
---
tte@cs.fau.de

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email