IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 09 May 2019 14:37 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.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 82B6912011B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 May 2019 07:37:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.633
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.633 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 iZOpZ6iiylbw for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 May 2019 07:37:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.148]) (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 4CF1E1200E5 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 May 2019 07:37:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x49EbExf047041; Thu, 9 May 2019 16:37:14 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 67433203EA4; Thu, 9 May 2019 16:37:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59A06203CDF; Thu, 9 May 2019 16:37:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.8.35.150] (is154594.intra.cea.fr [10.8.35.150]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x49EbEAr024864; Thu, 9 May 2019 16:37:14 +0200
Subject: Re: Fwd: Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <F8BFFCAD-E58E-4736-8A1C-56579B6F6032@employees.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1905070846120.1824@uplift.swm.pp.se> <5bf11ff3fb3b4ba88c33c23521d931e8@boeing.com> <CAN-Dau3BtudB5HM=1u72BExu_64teEDeO7i+aQXhk28Qc2u2vA@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0Rv3YKg+rmwMK2yDOD0iDi-=bG0uGq0yNMTkLH7nAGBw@mail.gmail.com> <2c5cb04f-d695-b48d-a748-209ddf3b22b4@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1905091559200.1824@uplift.swm.pp.se>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <291d8f2e-d79f-6aca-00be-30792af1bfe2@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 May 2019 16:37:14 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1905091559200.1824@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/HEeDYHssOgoButLQheHmUyMJexE>
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: Thu, 09 May 2019 14:37:19 -0000


Le 09/05/2019 à 16:00, Mikael Abrahamsson a écrit :
> On Thu, 9 May 2019, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> 
>> Layer-2 filtering on ethertype is a great idea.  I would concur.
>>
>> But on cellular links there's no ethertype.  It's what they call a PDP 
>> type.
> 
> This draft is irrelevant in that context because for the PDP type there 
> is explicit signaling of the PDP type, so the UE knows whether to use it 
> for IPv4, IPv6 or IPv4+IPv6.
 >
> 
> So there is no RA flag needed.

In a sense I agree: since the network sets this PDP type IPv6 then the 
Host can try as hard as it can IPv4 - it wont get through.

On another sense I disagree:  a Host on a cellular PDP type IPv6 and not 
receiving a flag IPv6-only in an RA is in a messy situation.

Alex
PS: I would like to continue the conversation, but I realize I must 
start to rate limit.

>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email