IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com> Sun, 12 May 2019 15:33 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.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 A672412017E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 May 2019 08:33:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 R4NoHvPwRz9B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 May 2019 08:33:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D69C212002F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 May 2019 08:33:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) (Smail #157) id m1hPqU5-0000KKC; Sun, 12 May 2019 17:33:53 +0200
Message-Id: <m1hPqU5-0000KKC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.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> <m1hP6gP-0000E7C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <0C26A308-E3B1-4C7B-B786-AAB79878B722@lists.zabbadoz.net> <m1hPOWV-0000KSC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <7f50355d4df749bd88e974b6e14a86dc@boeing.com> <1cf3ea89-985e-91bb-32b3-23be17f5a03f@gmail.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 12 May 2019 13:26:35 +1200 ." <1cf3ea89-985e-91bb-32b3-23be17f5a03f@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 May 2019 17:33:52 +0200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Gduot_Yf-OInjVMop14jCIOK8Ak>
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: Sun, 12 May 2019 15:33:57 -0000

>2) sunset4 failed to document such heuristics. In this thread we have the maki
>ngs of a useful set of heuristics, with or without the ipv6only flag. But that
> would presumably be v6ops or opsawg territory.

Sunset4 tried something similar as this draft
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sunset4-noipv4-01)
and then failed to get consensus.

Beyond that, there are as far as I know no drafts that specify IPv4
heuristics. There are also no drafts with a problem statement.

So I'm not sure to what extent sunset4 actually tried to document such
heuristics.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email