Re: IPv4 traffic on "ietf-v6ONLY"

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 15 November 2017 03:31 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 1A00F126CBF for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 19:31:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 GsiYqt5JeD5j for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 19:31:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x232.google.com (mail-pf0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69A06126B72 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 19:31:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x232.google.com with SMTP id 17so16004922pfn.12 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 19:31:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=xXmshC4RxzhzC7PhFXMDcBwhrIoF2LSyVN3LNvvs4hQ=; b=IFyGKxnM2nElN/W9K2v3is2CSys4Zg2/sqndK8cOlEJa8NQmFgQDFak8krithmtDra 03keuqFclGRmmxuwIdcfWa3L2Xd1qaWCq6j7qxxBcur0C+bs3buJCRT33VdPED9cNGv0 aFMj/v40iy69fVSt56Gql1RymcgsXDaxnjzr36+atbrZnhFQ6MCBhgN8fZuA0VBzJoK8 vZvuC9mOttpG/b+wkkyvzX4PHoaPHW8K0Ng14I1ZQxbAk3DG3U/vKDjxOrwiQYw0hmR/ QFN8norCo+HkKKIkPmKnxQQDGJjipDU4p+OqS72vp0vymI3KyXEZ2R4yw0Wgu148x+Vp 0wYA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xXmshC4RxzhzC7PhFXMDcBwhrIoF2LSyVN3LNvvs4hQ=; b=TEYlXvqvictuA0Gm8eQwkxQMz7sMYoLxrzgWVV8k668ksA4/uNDw5/f5xSJeIZPQzP pJHs4oyVbDw5FkZez0rxG48np1QkCRH881rPEI0fn304xA2ENL6T4l+sDMScr5Iyy/Xh iYtxHljtRW6zYKUqJrX+o+m5f/71TliOfdBbblM/nWrmctbHCT4DueKhkEaGI+JxrvMu nOP+Wj3KhEqtKIceCqqemrPXH3q0MqXi0GMWTLLPajbPH1DBXzbVUjRZhGwCsR2YyZ/t RGyUDV5gapJdmUQDKSzIl1R5N7t6Cpq63EOxqh4CvN461jy75A0THloXG/HWre7blhMY buOw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX5xG2wfDYn34Cz7M5cXw8H1djxL77P1fvsP6z31IxDHGLG81kvT Vq0ZB4EYZJvDoYmQOmE1jrKerg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMaIThhqclskWBjv9H44o85YdAI7wwzsL+niNCJ9EiLrDJ2KLrN3vmHjjVHSmSH0w+YYTGZPpw==
X-Received: by 10.84.224.75 with SMTP id a11mr12243389plt.421.1510716692690; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 19:31:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:67c:370:1998:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2001:67c:370:1998:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c73sm45910195pfd.139.2017.11.14.19.31.30 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 14 Nov 2017 19:31:31 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: IPv4 traffic on "ietf-v6ONLY"
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org>, ipv6@ietf.org
References: <f9805855-68cf-a3e8-a13f-c6ac31b09058@gmail.com> <bbd4e1d2-047f-6758-76f8-fd591c51dad7@gmail.com> <D631CE54.8C0F5%lee@asgard.org> <f1f9626a-946a-a791-2e42-803a5024a450@gmail.com> <2C1A44D3-A53B-4E2A-9FF1-79A715518E9A@gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <2a97bed4-c224-5728-bb78-978279c41e66@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 16:31:32 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2C1A44D3-A53B-4E2A-9FF1-79A715518E9A@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/K_bp4S0dCF7R47xwwl721SNdELk>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 03:31:35 -0000

On 15/11/2017 16:11, Ralph Droms wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Nov 14, 2017, at 10:07 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 15/11/2017 15:59, Lee Howard wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/15/17, 10:44 AM, "ipv6 on behalf of Brian E Carpenter"
>>> <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 15/11/2017 15:13, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>>>>> There is much IPv4 traffic on the "ietf-v6ONLY" ESSID.
>>>>
>>>> Also on the DNS64 network. But it is all one-way, you
>>>> will notice. No replies as far as I can see. Most of them
>>>> are sourced from 169.254.*.*, but there are some oddities such as
>>>> 31.130.227.98	224.0.0.1	IGMPv2	42	Membership Query, general
>>>
>>>
>>> Does that return us to the question of how to tell hosts that IPv4 doesn’t
>>> live here, and to stop trying?
>>
>> Maybe. But on the other hand there is no reason in principle
>> that peer2peer traffic between 169.254.*.* addresses won't work.
>> (There are reasons in practice, e.g. it doesn't work on Windows 7.)
> 
> Can you get any sense of how much of the IPv4 traffic is useless?  Would it be useful to try to quench that useless traffic to improve network performance, behavior, operations?  
> 

At the moment I think it's 100% useless traffic - in the two captures,
I see messages from many 169.254.*.* addresses and, I think, none that
are sent to such an address (except 169.254.255.255). Haven't quite
figured out the Wireshark display filter to be 100% certain

    Brian