Re: Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05

"Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> Fri, 10 May 2019 17:43 UTC

Return-Path: <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net>
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 7AF87120089 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 May 2019 10:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 9E2UK4VqVucj for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 May 2019 10:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.sbone.de (mx1.sbone.de [IPv6:2a01:4f8:13b:39f::9f:25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 780F8120074 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 May 2019 10:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sbone.de (mail.sbone.de [IPv6:fde9:577b:c1a9:31::2013:587]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.sbone.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D88818D4A179; Fri, 10 May 2019 17:43:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from content-filter.sbone.de (content-filter.sbone.de [IPv6:fde9:577b:c1a9:31::2013:2742]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.sbone.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A27FDE7085E; Fri, 10 May 2019 17:43:08 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sbone.de
Received: from mail.sbone.de ([IPv6:fde9:577b:c1a9:31::2013:587]) by content-filter.sbone.de (content-filter.sbone.de [fde9:577b:c1a9:31::2013:2742]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bam9XhQN0-jT; Fri, 10 May 2019 17:43:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.2.110] (unknown [IPv6:fde9:577b:c1a9:31:2ef0:eeff:fe03:ee34]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.sbone.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 37267E7085D; Fri, 10 May 2019 17:43:06 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net>
To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05
Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 17:43:05 +0000
X-Mailer: MailMate (2.0BETAr6137)
Message-ID: <122CFF99-DA4E-4676-A773-0F57F744AC73@lists.zabbadoz.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau3dqML64G5gG+Rh9nwC-JHDNH_sfeK8C-cqis1n5bswCg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F8BFFCAD-E58E-4736-8A1C-56579B6F6032@employees.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1905091054560.1824@uplift.swm.pp.se> <m1hOfjp-0000IdC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <924a4e34-e5f9-9872-bd4a-c0f68fd5387f@gmail.com> <m1hP1uA-0000EhC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <12F17008-16C5-4E58-89DB-BC7D01341CD7@lists.zabbadoz.net> <f1210218-9a51-805f-df31-d96dc9381c91@foobar.org> <F5BC870A-0853-43A3-A493-DC7DF8701B50@lists.zabbadoz.net> <C5A98D65-ABC9-4728-82C5-CF81F8FE53D8@steffann.nl> <CAN-Dau3F+Z94aC1fAohZDz81z=Kg4u1TZGiuMH_L4yVUCH1sMg@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau3dqML64G5gG+Rh9nwC-JHDNH_sfeK8C-cqis1n5bswCg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/CP2JXHwEf2VOswInkvB1C9gnFZs>
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: Fri, 10 May 2019 17:43:14 -0000

On 10 May 2019, at 14:52, David Farmer wrote:

> I just had an additional thought, should there be any effect on a
> statically configured global scope unicast IPv4 address on a host in 
> the
> presence of this flag?
>
> This question got me thinking, the problem isn't really having an 
> address
> configured on the IPv4 stack or even having the IPv4 stack turned on, 
> the
> problem on the wire is IPv4 service discovery and too persistently 
> sending
> out periodic IPv4 DHCPDISCOVERS.
>
> So really the effect we needed is not necessarily a "hard off" for the 
> IPv4
> stack or even RFC 3927. If the IPv4 stack has an address on it, 
> statically
> configured or from RFC 3927, who cares. It is the generation of futile 
> IPv4
> service discovery traffic using that address and overly persistently
> periodic IPv4 DHCPDISCOVERS that is the issue for local battery and
> possibly WiFi airtime.
>
> Therefore, maybe what should be specified is a "hard off" for IPv4 
> service
> discovery in the presence of the flag and limiting IPv4 DHCPDISCOVERS. 
> Then
> note depending on the details of the IPv4 stack implementation the
> necessary effects can be achieved in several ways;
>
> 1. Turn off IPv4 service discovery and limit IPv4 DHCPDISCOVERS.
> 2. Do not configure an RFC 3927 address, if no IPv4 DHCPOFFER is 
> received
> and limit IPv4 DHCPDISCOVERS.
> 3. Turn off the IPv4 stack altogether.
>
> Noting that the list is in order of preference, but the particulars of 
> the
> IPv4 stack implementation will dictate the best solution in each
> implementation. Further, option #3 is NOT RECOMMENDED for especially 
> for
> general purpose hosts.


I like that thinking.  Keep going.

Here’s a suggestion.  If you were to implement your 1 or 2 or 3 what 
would you still see on your (IPv6 enabled) network if you’d run:

tcpdump -ln -e -s0 [-i <iface>] ipv4 or arp   (or use wireshark or 
equivalent).


Then, here’s the next question, using OSX as an example (you can do it 
on some other OSes in other ways):

networksetup -setv4off <networkservice>			(in the GUI: Configure IPv4: 
off)

and then run the tcpdump again.

Then think what you’d still see if all of that if all hosts would 
implement your 1/2/3?

Then repeat the same experiment on your unmanaged home network, your 
campus network, a coffee shop.


It’s enlightening :-)

/bz