Re: IPv4 traffic on "ietf-v6ONLY"

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 16 November 2017 09:53 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 9176D126CD6 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 01:53:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 T7LX1f3jokNk for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 01:53:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x234.google.com (mail-pg0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62DA2129437 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 01:52:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x234.google.com with SMTP id p9so20193106pgc.8 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 01:52:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=DewBn3gRztDtyNnrmfaNYw/KmzEQfW0FRaxh41IInz8=; b=tT8Iov249/dWdxibFMpBgGGA6/bOuS9aoD0/FrhaDuRiWv0HBY1CxbskauFPdeMj+S X+RHS4Zuxt5quxfJf24+pQhHvyhFihyp2UXFppRoBlsBcHTQyQD1rJbu/t63DnPaI3bi ywg0gcyL+esaDZM+kCOwIEMiCKDBa0HtAubNV/XzJac6f3lVziejPIJmZgge7FrQEb1G oaV0tqRCCUV5zfS9Umh4RZozSa4PXMVaV8xff5TddWRrgASmkKR39e/gtRZOMWealSEU IgPdu1w/BrLMIShPpQ7u7Kk2v7gS/cki0c+TiV2IB/H2NnBOLqomwtk2DWC4ncDmA69T KdKQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=DewBn3gRztDtyNnrmfaNYw/KmzEQfW0FRaxh41IInz8=; b=Ccw2lqi3RQls/UE5biv/kXtFh99FVF0rzlAd/ZcHqSExJtlQHzhKHoW7vrshb52HT5 kE+F4RGTASKZ8pipLmTS0kdLXKIKVWhKQrpEC5jPcdh1x+8oBP4TyyU9Q3HtY59ZGleY 5U7PSXs8DkMYccbFoqc1/vfEDNebceLJZzXxzWTgMp+fCB0coEE7E60va3T+NNaUtShV 2NY+cPS2RP2T45qvGxPzw3A1pzJmwNYAdbhwhC0Wcbh4Yaqh+yRAkbHYAxeuUYNC33XG r/sZnWhsvLZGDCUEuNr3yIJvA48nOG7YakwKBxoPuGnf4B3/2sCPyJHjZVtEMM80/frO 6Wlw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX7d7pKI3HcQx1fB8gKE/LsHsh/8QFKUkZ0RpxfhlCFZ5GiRg6o8 RZKrIua4OBEradIdk40k1wXm2w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMYZkT80M1AhFdXhrfRagCQGIRxltco9P9Melkm6ihxJDdL2QURO4kumtykWq73Hr1AI4VDeew==
X-Received: by 10.101.100.65 with SMTP id s1mr1109967pgv.185.1510825967667; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 01:52:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:67c:370:1998:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2001:67c:370:1998:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x6sm1867120pgq.57.2017.11.16.01.52.45 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 16 Nov 2017 01:52:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: IPv4 traffic on "ietf-v6ONLY"
To: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>
Cc: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>, 6man WG <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> <D75288D5-B571-46EB-A35E-0DBD79F930E5@google.com> <72f42d56-2466-dfaa-59e9-ebb2264e8ca4@gmail.com> <CAN-Dau3mVnTKqkzYWHa3qnTHWWcos=BXKgGfKsyD9ScWAB4obA@mail.gmail.com> <abf6ceaf-dcca-9487-f9b3-95aebba3fab0@gmail.com> <B61E59C5-F767-43CE-9EE0-CCE9666F4ED3@jisc.ac.uk>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <efb8e1ff-b9f1-598f-ecb8-50cc2c5b1df7@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 22:52:49 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <B61E59C5-F767-43CE-9EE0-CCE9666F4ED3@jisc.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Ck2cpIzKZxVdY-D15sPGPZpFcMc>
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 09:53:38 -0000

On 16/11/2017 22:44, Tim Chown wrote:
>> On 16 Nov 2017, at 00:56, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 16/11/2017 13:39, David Farmer wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 5:54 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
>>> brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 16/11/2017 08:15, james woodyatt wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 15, 2017, at 02:47, Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-4@u-1.phicohcoh.
>>>> com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The safest option to do that is a DHCPv4 option that says 'no IPv4
>>>> service here, go away'.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Better: extend ARP with a signal that says, “ARP is not welcome here."
>>>>
>>>> However, the IPv4 traffic seen on ietf-dns64 is negligible and harmless.
>>>> That is a practical indication that this problem probably isn't worth
>>>> solving.
>>>>
>>>> I submit for example that sending a new "not welcome" response to
>>>> ARP requests would do more harm than good, since the legacy hosts
>>>> would probably react badly.
>>>>
>>>>   Brian
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'd love to see some data to back up the conjecture, that is the "traffic
>>> ... is negligible and harmless"
>>
>> That it's negligible was shown in Bob Hinden's statistics from Wireshark.
>> That it's harmless seems obvious - it's virtually all multicast discovery
>> traffic that goes nowhere. As I said, I have a couple of capture files
>> if anybody is interested.
> 
> Careful with that ethics can of worms you’re holding there ;)

Yes, maybe we need to add "IP packets" to the last sentence of the Note Well ;-)

   Brian
 
> I’ve seen some university networks where the wireless is surprisingly flat, and the multicast/broadcast traffic is not insignificant. The more recent trend is to VLAN pool or similar to avoid that, but that then affects service discovery (two WiFi devices in same room, but potentially on different subnets).> 
> The service discovery traffic is generally replicated over IPv4 and IPv6; 
> you’ll see the same advertisements and discovery traffic essentially duplicated.  But this is potentially useful in say a home network where you have legacy devices like TVs for which you can only discover the display over IPv4, and throw data to it over IPv4. 
> 
> The model in the DNSSD WG for wider area discovery is to keep resolution local, and relay the responses from the discovery proxies using unicast. 
> 
> Tim
>