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

[Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>]

Mikel

It sounds like the OS manufacturers are what is driving this such as Microsoft and in the end they will do what is best for them based on their interpretation so I think as mentioned would be nice to nail it down but from the manufacturer perspective keeping it a little bit broad but crystal clear that it’s a signal to the host that changes IPv4 behavior to be disabled or suppressed.

I think we far as migration strategies I think that is overall a big win from an access perspective in terms of IP administration not having to manage both IPv4 and IPv6 allocations and IPv6 being hierarchical and classless makes IP management simple so a big gain for OS and IT support on managed networks being deployed to go day 1 provision as IPv6 only  and existing networks for gain of IT support staff administrators being able to scale down the support staff could also easily migrate NOW to IPv6 only using the 6to4 nat 6to4 dns and 6to4 proxy to access IPv4 internal and external resources.

Brian

In the draft can we mention simplifying IT address administration being a technical business driver for enterprises to start migrating NOW to IPV6 only and maybe also all newly deployed managed and maybe even unmanaged could also go in Day 1 IPv6 only.

Gyan

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 11, 2019, at 2:52 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 11 May 2019, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> 
>> It's always been my opinion that the flag is input to a heuristic; but from time to time we've had pushback asking for it to be more definitive.
> 
> It's been my take that regardless what we write in the document, it's going to be treated as a signal and the host will do whatever the device manufacturer thinks is best. The "SHOULD NOT" in term of "IPv4 operations" leave enough room for interpretation for that.
> 
> However, others have interpreted the document differently, so it's obvious that the text needs changing. I think we have rough consensus on the flag being a signal (much like the M/O flag) that the host can act on if it so desires. So if the text can be changed to actually say so, it seems to me this is acceptable to a rough majority and we could then progress the document.
> 
> I am not super happy about leaving the ambiguity out there (see the earlier discussion on different OSes doing different things when the M/O flag changes) but I think it's the prudent way because we can't predict all the use-cases out there, and the different types of devices. The implementors know this best, and the document could point out in the considerations section some things that have been brought up in the discussions so far.
> 
> -- 
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [e-mail]
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------