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

[Sander Steffann <[e-mail]>]

Hi David,

> Personally, I'm not particularly worried about DHCPDISCOVERS at least in most cases, there are a few badly behaved clients, but in general exponential backoff in the client should deal with this nicely. Personally, my issue is IPv4 LL, in particular, service advertisement/discovery traffic using IPv4 LL. This service advertisement/discovery traffic can be sizable and is already problematic for many WiFi networks so the elimination of such traffic that is by definition futile is an unqualified win in such situations.

Definitely

>> This is what I consider an overly restrictive view ("purist") of an IPv6-only link. Telling your clients that ask for IPv4 using DHCP that there isn't any isn't an operational problem.
> 
> Let's stop calling each other names, it's not helpful.

My apologies if you felt this was calling names. I merely use the term to describe an overly restrictive and in my view harmful requirement that has no basis in operational need. I fully agree with the goal of limiting any unnecessary traffic is useful, but requiring that not a single IPv4 packet may be used is not very helpful, realistic or necessary.

I have strong objections to such an unnecessary requirement being used to justify protocol design choices.

I think this draft needs to be put on hold until we have a decent problem statement on what we're trying to achieve. That should include intended deployment scenarios, existing possible solutions etc. There are still too many different discussions going on at once (hard/soft flag, intended goals etc) to have any chance of reaching consensus.

Cheers,
Sander