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

[神明達哉 <[e-mail]>]

At Sat, 20 Oct 2018 14:42:32 +1300,
Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:

> >> Note, I am all for some trial implementations, but why does *this*
draft
> >> need one when so many others don't?
> >
> > Whatever happened to "We believe in rough consensus and running code"?
>
> It hasn't gone away, although formally it only applies for promotion
> above "Proposed Standard" status. And I believe in it, and that's why
> there's running code for GRASP (draft-ietf-anima-grasp-15). But for
> something that has to go into the basic IP stack, it's not so easy to
> prototype,

I don't think it's that hard to develop a PoC host implementation.
There's a standard socket API for a user space application to receive
and inspect RAs (in fact, in my understanding many open source
implementations of RFC8106/6106 work that way).

And then, when it detects the link is IPv6-only per the draft, the
application could configure IPv4 host firewall rules to drop any
outgoing IPv4 packets.  This implementation won't help the device
itself avoid wasting its battery, but will avoid disturbing others.
Accessibility from applications to such firewalls would depend on
operating system details, but at least it should be readily available
on general purpose systems such as BSDs or Linux.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya