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

["Bjoern A. Zeeb" <[e-mail]>]

On 7 May 2019, at 16:54, Sander Steffann wrote:

> Hi Bob,
>
>> Would it help if the draft said the focus is for managed networks?
>
> Hmm. Just stating where it's supposed to be used doesn't prevent abuse 
> in other situations. If we can actually limit the potential impact on 
> devices on unmanaged networks then that would be great.
>
> I understand this is not easy, as the same devices will be used on 
> both networks.

Given as of the last draft there is an option to disable processing 
despite implementing, OS vendors can implement the draft and do what 
they think suits their users.   Even more so they might leave the 
default to “off” for now as an “advanced option to turn on” and 
with a major OS update, once the world has moved on, flip the switch in 
the future.

I can foresee a time when ISPs really don’t want to deal with the IPv4 
for end users anymore and you’ll be happy to have the option then.  
Based on 8+ years of an ipv6-only unmanaged home network (but some code 
under my control) I can tell you that I’ll be happy if more vendors 
start thinking “what if there’s no DCHPv4 or IPv4 gateway 
anymore?” now!  Especially all the smart gadgets that make it into the 
homes at the moment and multi-function devices.  If it doesn’t happen 
soon, your support calls will come the moment you want to have the flag 
and turn it on and it’s not there.  This is investing in a future to 
come now with the option to leave it off until we get to the point.

That said I am sure ISPs already talking to many of these “smart 
entertainment device vendors” given they probably get enough support 
calls for them anyway..  It’s in your hands to give them an extra bit 
to better prepare for the future, and possibly in the meantime improving 
the dual-stack IPv6 as well.

/bz