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

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 18/10/2018 à 19:28, David Schinazi a écrit :
[...] Is there even running code of this proposal?

Do you think it is difficult?

I am asking because I see three parts to 'running code' of this proposal:

1. realizing in practice that there is a problem.  This part of the
    implementation is ok, because there is reporting of testing it
    (Singapour).

2. sending an RA with IPv6-only flag: it's not difficult to add one
    bit to open source radvd, odhcp (openwrt's RA implementation) or
    scapy.

3. receiving the IPv6-only flag: the easiest thing to do right now is
    for the receiver to ignore it.

The point 2 could thus be the most critical, if this is what you meant.

Alex

  I think making
> this a standard would be premature at this point.
> 
> Thanks,
> David Schinazi
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 2:48 PM Ole Troan <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Nick,
> 
>      > Brian E Carpenter wrote on 17/10/2018 03:39:
>      >> We've attempted in this version to respond to the comments
>     received during WGLC.
>      >> The most important change is this:
>      >>       *  Reorganized text about problem statement and applicability
>      >> We hope the new text makes it clear how the solution relates to
>     other
>      >> solutions (layer 2 filtering or using a DHCPv4 option).
>      >> There are a number of other changes:
>      >>       *  Added note about shortage of flag bits
>      >>       *  Clarified text about logging configuration error in
>     Section 6
>      >>       *  Editorial changes.
>      >
>      > Brian
>      >
>      > -03 polishes some peripheral stuff but doesn't substantially
>     address any of the issues I've brought up over the last couple of
>     months.
>      >
>      > Chairs: none the issues I've raised previously have been
>     substantially addressed in this revision.  Do we need to go through
>     all these issues again, individually, on the mailing list for them
>     to be considered as outstanding in this draft?
> 
>     If you believe there are comments within the scope of the draft that
>     hasn’t been addressed I suggest you bring them back to the list.
> 
>     If there are several I can set up an issue tracker for this draft.
> 
>     Cheers
>     Ole
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
>     IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>