IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: problem statement [was Re: New Version Notification for draft-hinden-ipv4flag-00.txt]

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Tue, 21 November 2017 22:33 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 3B723126B6E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:33:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 6srZGJQAKSCL for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:33:10 -0800 (PST)
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 638921241F5 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:33:09 -0800 (PST)
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 vALLWqA6025147 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 21 Nov 2017 21:32:53 GMT (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
Message-ID: <5A14A9A1.5020803@foobar.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 22:33:05 +0000
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.20 (Macintosh/20171012)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
CC: IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: problem statement [was Re: New Version Notification for draft-hinden-ipv4flag-00.txt]
References: <151090059151.22321.3357672601322845792.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <E838C63E-7612-4AA4-9375-854C184D699E@gmail.com> <CAFU7BAQKoWPcEFQZgU3k_d0gUL4en6d2pyNq1V4RMNZ6HrSG8w@mail.gmail.com> <649be36e-5006-7688-448f-bc2794d6a39c@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3WC+vwL_=0PeiJ_D85NqFVTCkb8c83x-ZtGhAbSELGMA@mail.gmail.com> <5A119443.2030108@foobar.org> <CAFU7BASwgLfkO-4kk9-vba_P+jmcFHD5+Hy_7b3cnNkOSv30wg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3pKk22Hkxy4_8YMZYiA4Wwp=6JzdRDKFGdTY1gf=ntfA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711200848390.32099@uplift.swm.pp.se> <5A12FBE4.9030101@foobar.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711210647151.32099@uplift.swm.pp.se> <5A144A78.6060108@foobar.org> <CAKD1Yr3oQvkSX7ARxfGQVg08=-PTKRFPg1wz_zUKSSAHmMbyMA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr3oQvkSX7ARxfGQVg08=-PTKRFPg1wz_zUKSSAHmMbyMA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/PcUDpBZNpasSQkVARXEOYVIeGdc>
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: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 22:33:12 -0000

Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 12:47 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
> > There would also be a requirement
> > for the network edge to be able to filter out RAs with this option,
> 
> Why is it not sufficient to configure the routers that emit the RAs?

because you're assuming congruity between ipv4 and ipv6 connectivity on
a network, which is not codified in any ietf document that I'm aware of.
 If there is a incongruity between management of the two protocols, then
the l2 network must have a mechanism to stop an ipv6 gateway from
attempting shutting down ipv4 services.

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email