IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Tue, 30 April 2019 21:55 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
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 D103A1203C1 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 14:55:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 f1ggmP3gdiRz for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 14:55:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CE661203C0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 14:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: ipv6@ietf.org
Received: from crumpet.local (089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x3ULtfKQ002782 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 30 Apr 2019 22:55:42 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host 089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged) claimed to be crumpet.local
Subject: Re: Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <F8BFFCAD-E58E-4736-8A1C-56579B6F6032@employees.org> <a2465e81-a17f-ab48-efda-20fe12a70077@foobar.org> <30239E0C-C444-4A7E-8342-AEE47BF8A2BB@employees.org> <8b9fd743-bfcc-525c-98f6-154f3fa713cc@foobar.org> <CAO42Z2zEWvt9NyemMb8H0AEvPvmNSDGa4wcXiS6n5yRxNFCHQg@mail.gmail.com> <c7e18765-be04-6494-8193-984dbccb520b@foobar.org> <CANMZLAYh+V57yrWOzmUyjSMK0g95u1D5_GZmyZBMOMKAZnrnCg@mail.gmail.com> <3F474511-6FE3-4A0A-9B84-7C37F08FBB5D@steffann.nl> <E352C226-C708-4418-BCDE-10525CAB109A@jisc.ac.uk> <652fb10e-b8ce-0151-a9a0-62d2378caed2@gmail.com>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <0079c716-d56c-7199-f493-f5e56e1307ae@foobar.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 22:55:40 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/6.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <652fb10e-b8ce-0151-a9a0-62d2378caed2@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/MQRc9JCjSCDlQP2pSdQhFzwMy44>
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: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 21:55:49 -0000

Brian E Carpenter wrote on 30/04/2019 21:48:
> So I'd rather understand *why* the costs outweigh the benefits. One 
> more thing for an operator to configure and check in each first-hop 
> router, vs reduction of pointless traffic on updated hosts. I'm not 
> sure how to make that an objective rather than a subjective 
> trade-off.
Hi Brian,

Email is being a serious barrier to communication in this discussion :-(

The problem statement just isn't there:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/GCGYTXhg0V9mQBrcO7zhC5wtnp0

The contents of this email largely still apply to the current text in -05.

The cost is too high:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/NIJ194PI8CLkuZT8U_jKEOY01QI

You've shown no analysis of realistic use cases.

For something standards track, and this far down the protocol stack and 
with such a large security considerations section, the proposal ought to 
be thoroughly compelling for a wide variety of deployment scenarios, but 
it isn't.  There are better ways of skinning this cat.

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email