Re: IPv4 traffic on "ietf-v6ONLY"

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

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EECA6127B52 for <>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 03:02:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.519
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 51cj40DkCpUX for <>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 03:02:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E6FF12711E for <>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 03:02:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; 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-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.44,398,1505779200"; d="scan'208,217";a="319033130"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Nov 2017 11:02:02 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (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 ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 05:02:01 -0600
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 05:02:01 -0600
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <>
To: Philip Homburg <>
CC: "" <>, "Andrew Yourtchenko (ayourtch)" <>
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: <>
References: <> <> <> ,<>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5655992F737A4223A91763CAD6DF7A1Dciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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.


On Nov 15, 2017, at 5:48 AM, Philip Homburg <<>> 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<>
Administrative Requests: