IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-03.txt

Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk> Mon, 22 October 2018 10:04 UTC

Return-Path: <tim.chown@jisc.ac.uk>
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 2782B130E04 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 03:04:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=jisc.ac.uk
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 KAhyNoUfAzdq for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 03:04:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eu-smtp-delivery-189.mimecast.com (eu-smtp-delivery-189.mimecast.com [146.101.78.189]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3302130EA1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 03:04:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jisc.ac.uk; s=mimecast20170213; t=1540202665; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=SpGm8ZTYuDMx/nGgmVpiebOe4hVKg2WABQ5/8FGjeMc=; b=HlDDHJ14dxSDTjyD1dp5SU9FnGOCqQ1IjffHXCvgqwQvJmRgzkD8D1KJbP7WMZ7hiXPhj9tc4uxQ/Kk4Bx74Kt0G5lpJQCHTUYTkT2n1OQ47u6jdPrNzLpW1OpPsKQs4FDEG7TjjcoGV9M6jThUdoR1Bx25IAdhXwj4BRl4yU6s=
Received: from EUR03-AM5-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-am5eur03lp0120.outbound.protection.outlook.com [213.199.154.120]) (Using TLS) by eu-smtp-1.mimecast.com with ESMTP id uk-mta-117-7s7z2mHrMV-37kuTzjEfmw-2; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 11:04:23 +0100
Received: from AM0PR07MB4177.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (52.133.59.156) by AM0PR07MB5299.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (20.178.20.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1273.10; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 10:04:16 +0000
Received: from AM0PR07MB4177.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c164:2ace:2da0:efa2]) by AM0PR07MB4177.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c164:2ace:2da0:efa2%5]) with mapi id 15.20.1273.014; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 10:04:16 +0000
From: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
CC: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-03.txt
Thread-Topic: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-03.txt
Thread-Index: AQHUZaVmTVCRy+rPjkWcDttZzYFarqUiqVIAgAeD+fSAAEysgIAAl+uA
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 10:04:16 +0000
Message-ID: <3F8BCD30-DEE4-44B8-BF45-CAB75F21B11A@jisc.ac.uk>
References: <153973137181.9473.10666616544238076833@ietfa.amsl.com> <092346e1-6350-e54e-e711-9c5ee6dc4e6b@gmail.com> <4a883ed6-c0d7-5d3f-9657-3ba0476919e0@foobar.org> <6952EE88-B3D6-48BC-ACFF-C5248965EDC9@employees.org> <61706f85-cf3a-1a03-0371-30fe3eaaec6f@foobar.org> <2afa8333-fad3-3a26-0466-2ed3bd1e0c9c@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <2afa8333-fad3-3a26-0466-2ed3bd1e0c9c@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
x-originating-ip: [2001:a88:d510:1101:94ce:f190:e752:1c38]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; AM0PR07MB5299; 20:k/hvIUPF2YgLRiStfyKz8laVwwd81Mow3OXpBtcyamGdvOylPquAElN9lIaO8GRaY/i1M3eRF9bdqynaLfiSRdk6A+f2+y0XajRiMhfNBMs6qZAMrzPjO7CEqxCCYVum3a4GT3pOqup+8my35lcgADV96Nk4KWajqY0igObm3OM=
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 6fc2930e-bcc7-460f-d861-08d63805b9c9
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600074)(711020)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:AM0PR07MB5299;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM0PR07MB5299:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <AM0PR07MB52990AC3D46455FBCE6C5382D6F40@AM0PR07MB5299.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(163750095850)(190756311086443)(85827821059158);
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040522)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(3231355)(944501410)(52105095)(3002001)(93006095)(93001095)(148016)(149066)(150057)(6041310)(201703131423095)(201702281529075)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123558120)(20161123562045)(20161123564045)(20161123560045)(201708071742011)(7699051)(76991095); SRVR:AM0PR07MB5299; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:AM0PR07MB5299;
x-forefront-prvs: 08331F819E
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(346002)(366004)(136003)(376002)(396003)(39850400004)(189003)(199004)(256004)(82746002)(86362001)(81156014)(81166006)(105586002)(11346002)(53936002)(186003)(8936002)(8676002)(36756003)(486006)(54906003)(83716004)(6436002)(6116002)(5250100002)(478600001)(97736004)(46003)(71200400001)(74482002)(102836004)(71190400001)(57306001)(14454004)(53546011)(446003)(4001150100001)(5660300001)(6506007)(6916009)(305945005)(2616005)(76176011)(93886005)(7736002)(25786009)(6246003)(229853002)(4326008)(39060400002)(6512007)(68736007)(106356001)(33656002)(2900100001)(786003)(316002)(2906002)(99286004)(476003)(50226002)(72206003)(6486002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:AM0PR07MB5299; H:AM0PR07MB4177.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: lHJtCogVAglFqdm2ree5g9gcjNtUEtuCkDhbYxIBr1nhBxJ23C09IoWvIcNxF68p3yL8CLoSRGbHaXJsE2YPcceMUNEN0dCsFjLM6yOTDXXSGi9TOzPOQ6PlLJUgYgep/WBGkQbI/+gv14IQ8aSO0r5Rj+SxFiNpQpvFS2VrqxuXneLPrgeAHG4Avr5AH2AMQ2pRTGbdwJT7KDh0aQYSqQ4XanEij4Ip6rnp6tzgVKMeaNpEfGt8E4pZ6nuo4s8nOuVp729ESNnP1/H++bN6kUDRxcS46pH/cFhmYOnjuP+lzkDlyhbpz9HK7jarC56VaJm2c1hs0rPegKWXYeySiUvCiePyRblAx5ptU8yd6kw=
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-ID: <F3436F02D2D3CD4EA6A75FBF7665199F@eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: jisc.ac.uk
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 6fc2930e-bcc7-460f-d861-08d63805b9c9
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 22 Oct 2018 10:04:16.1571 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 48f9394d-8a14-4d27-82a6-f35f12361205
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM0PR07MB5299
X-MC-Unique: 7s7z2mHrMV-37kuTzjEfmw-2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="WINDOWS-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/DideKfRCRJh85DZNeP-vw8eOx00>
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: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 10:04:35 -0000

> On 22 Oct 2018, at 02:00, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 2018-10-22 09:25, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> 
>> What's happened now is that a new revision of the draft has been posted, 
>> and the process of posting it seems to have white-washed all the 
>> outstanding technical issues.
> 
> If by "white-wash" you mean "observe that they are side-issues for
> the proposed mechanism", you'd be right. This isn't about the best way
> to ensure IPv6-onlyness of a link; it's about one particular mechanism
> towards that goal. We could say less, or nothing at all, about other
> such mechanisms.
> 
> The WG may of course conclude that the mechanism isn't worth the bother.
> If that's the conclusion, the draft will not advance.

I'm currently leaning to the "don't bother" side.

There is currently no evidence of any vendor interest in implementing support for the flag.

Were they to come forward, I suspect interpretation and implementation would vary, given the vagueness of the flag's nature as a hint, causing inconsistent behaviour between various hosts/devices.

Tim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email