Re: IPv4 traffic on "ietf-v6ONLY"

> On Nov 14, 2017, at 10:07 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 15/11/2017 15:59, Lee Howard wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 11/15/17, 10:44 AM, "ipv6 on behalf of Brian E Carpenter"
>> <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 15/11/2017 15:13, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>>>> There is much IPv4 traffic on the "ietf-v6ONLY" ESSID.
>>> 
>>> Also on the DNS64 network. But it is all one-way, you
>>> will notice. No replies as far as I can see. Most of them
>>> are sourced from 169.254.*.*, but there are some oddities such as
>>> 31.130.227.98	224.0.0.1	IGMPv2	42	Membership Query, general
>> 
>> 
>> Does that return us to the question of how to tell hosts that IPv4 doesn’t
>> live here, and to stop trying?
> 
> Maybe. But on the other hand there is no reason in principle
> that peer2peer traffic between 169.254.*.* addresses won't work.
> (There are reasons in practice, e.g. it doesn't work on Windows 7.)

Can you get any sense of how much of the IPv4 traffic is useless?  Would it be useful to try to quench that useless traffic to improve network performance, behavior, operations?  

- Ralph

> 
>   Brian
> 
>> 
>> Lee
>> 
>>> 
>>> I have a couple of Wireshark capture files if anyone cares.
>>> 
>>>  Brian
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>> ipv6@ietf.org
>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------