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

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

Raymond,

> On May 27, 2019, at 9:32 PM, Raymond Burkholder <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 2019-05-27 7:24 p.m., Bob Hinden wrote:
>> On May 27, 2019, at 9:07 PM, Raymond Burkholder <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> On 2019-05-27 5:54 p.m., Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>> Then stop telling people to filter Ethertype 0x0800 because you can't use RFC2563 in the presence of such filters.
>>>>> Those are different options, depending on your situation.
>>>> Well, yes. But if an operator chooses to filter 0x0800 and wishes to actively
>>>> inform hosts that IPv4 is unavailable, only an IPv6 mechanism can do so.
>>>> So here we are.
>>> 'only an IPv6 mechanism can do so'  -- is that necessarily true?
>>> 
>>> A network link may have many other protocols other than ipv4 or ipv6: PTP, MacSec, LLDP, PBB, CFM, RoCE, ATAoE, MPLS, PPPoE, .... not to mention STP and the like which is very noisy.  I didn't see a summary in the document of how that might be handled.
>>> 
>>> So I guess this is IPv6-only in the sense of IPv6 with no IPv4.
>> Yes, it says that in Section 4. "IPv6-Only Definition”.  Reading the actual document is helpful in these discussions, not just the email thread :-)
> In light of the fact that there are other protocols on the link besides IPv6 and IPv4, should the enablement of this flag be approved, would it be better to name it for what it actually is: IPv4-disable?

An earlier version that was the case, but after a lot of discussion on the list it was renamed to IPv6-Only for what it is doing.  That is, make the link only run IPv6.

Bob

> 
>> Bob
>> 
>