Re: IPv4 traffic on "ietf-v6ONLY"

"Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com> Wed, 15 November 2017 11:02 UTC

Return-Path: <rajiva@cisco.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 EECA6127B52 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 03:02:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.519
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 51cj40DkCpUX for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 03:02:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E6FF12711E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 03:02:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5945; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1510743723; x=1511953323; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=5YWnnlhtwgmiPVK9JtOtZpYoEvJPAO3ICzqCg5aZkbI=; b=AsJcb/LI8RFY/gfgK2lMR9NFUj8PyJj6ykKEVhbxH/CzIdQB2CDKqBgj XM7tlTdRDKiI2+LVdT9ALXafXv2Vtg64HAZiEKa8Dpnfgsa2o8i7KGxMH BKDxv1+tvHXYfPK7sqhO2dpSADNIzdgUscsLILo72UMiKO9Dn2wyjLoov I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DBAACdHQxa/5NdJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYM2ZG4ng3+KH48fgVeRN4VJghEKGAEKhRgCGoRuPxgBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQFrKIUfAgEDAQEhRQYLEAIBCAQKMQMCAgIlCxQRAgQOBYlAZBCnYIInixcBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYBYM0ggeBVYISC4J2iC0xgjIFijSYAwKVBJN?= =?us-ascii?q?ElgACERkBgTgBHziBdHoVSS0BgjaEX3eIYQEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.44,398,1505779200"; d="scan'208,217";a="319033130"
Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Nov 2017 11:02:02 +0000
Received: from xch-rcd-011.cisco.com (xch-rcd-011.cisco.com [173.37.102.21]) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vAFB21qT022088 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:02:02 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-005.cisco.com (173.36.7.15) by XCH-RCD-011.cisco.com (173.37.102.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 05:02:01 -0600
Received: from xch-aln-005.cisco.com ([173.36.7.15]) by XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com ([173.36.7.15]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 05:02:01 -0600
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-4@u-1.phicoh.com>
CC: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>, "Andrew Yourtchenko (ayourtch)" <ayourtch@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: IPv4 traffic on "ietf-v6ONLY"
Thread-Topic: IPv4 traffic on "ietf-v6ONLY"
Thread-Index: AQHTXf83bm4aWWuTskuMVFltkxTomaMVRlRF
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:02:01 +0000
Message-ID: <5655992F-737A-4223-A917-63CAD6DF7A1D@cisco.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <m1eEvEP-0000G3C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5655992F737A4223A91763CAD6DF7A1Dciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/DShEstiBhTZZqFMYoY9go05j190>
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: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:02:05 -0000

Of course, a DHCPv4 option conflicts with the goal of some people to have
no IPv4 related infrastructure at all.

 Perhaps, define a DHCPv6 option to convey v6-only, for which the client interpretation should be to suppress v4.

Although this will be at the cross road with allowing client’s wishes to use v4 LL for whatever useless/useful traffic, it would be a reasonable deployment policy to enforce.

We have to remember that allowing this would continue to hurt WLAN (not wired LAN) for obvious reasons - radio bandwidth.

During one of ciscolive conferences, i recall having observed lots of useless v4 traffic (e.g. discovery) on WLAN.  Andrew (cced) may remember more details.

Cheers,
Rajiv

On Nov 15, 2017, at 5:48 AM, Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-4@u-1.phicoh.com<mailto:pch-ipv6-ietf-4@u-1.phicoh.com>> wrote:

Does that return us to the question of how to tell hosts that IPv4
doesnt live here, and to stop trying?

The safest option to do that is a DHCPv4 option that says 'no IPv4 service
here, go away'.

Any network that has IPv4 production traffic already has to protect against
rogue DHCPv4 servers.

Of course, a DHCPv4 option conflicts with the goal of some people to have
no IPv4 related infrastructure at all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------