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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 2018-10-25 16:04, Manfredi (US), Albert E wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Mark Andrews
> 
>> Yes.  The assumption when the flag is set is that all the boxes are IPv6
> capable.
> 
> Okay, you are speaking as the network admin.
> 
>> If I was implementing it the interface would become un-numbered for IPv4,
> the DHCP client would be disabled, mDNS would not be attempted over IPv4.
> 
> And, as a network admin, wanting to stop all IPv4 traffic for whatever network admin reason, it is feasible tout de suite, today, to simply filter Ethertypes 0x0806 and 0x0800, in your switches and router Ethernet interfaces. No need to wait for the IETF.
> 
> And similarly, from an equipment vendor's perspective, say your goal as smartphone maker is to extend battery life, make it your own responsibility to do what's best for your user. Don’t expect the network admin to care. Probe the network, see if IPv6 is sufficient for your user's needs, and if yes, then no op the IPv4 stack. The network admin couldn't care less, potentially. Why count on him/her?
> 
> So in short, why do we actually need any flag in the IP header?

Please read the draft again, since it intends to answer that exact question. (Nick and others have objected to some assertions in the text, but regardless of that... the draft intends to answer your question.)

   Brian