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

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Mon, 20 November 2017 07:28 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.com>
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 55C27129458 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Nov 2017 23:28:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 fSNKWqPzE1EM for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Nov 2017 23:28:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it0-x233.google.com (mail-it0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3C56129454 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Nov 2017 23:28:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it0-x233.google.com with SMTP id n134so10857630itg.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Nov 2017 23:28:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ct8th3EIPPDexXgfqiQRpYI6xnJDKBuCrSNbc89j+SM=; b=dtgM0uR88IIzBX8BAMUww1iWKQkBgQ20bb9eGTff3a8e/68b3bECg6bVlG53doCe4d PwCAVpacwDA8fbyccbWbp2skhTLVZSzmCuUqdUwtC0+wrnOOHOu7psu7wc6yJaHkCwkS A6ZkDqYHBMyuPND7tz+8x8r7aMWQqDyIFkxBnyw5oF1feqqZegHcvzQJo0U6tDmsirB4 4xyhnhw5VafGlKIlcXZpd0mICiFFdpxeaHLjMrbMef+FwnfZKO04CIFsYsQgv39FawxK Yu94PWu2E/QbfVWSQJABNszqCEasfj20k062H+pWp2ZH1O/4QvVSVfxwJC751Z7sblFZ gp/g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ct8th3EIPPDexXgfqiQRpYI6xnJDKBuCrSNbc89j+SM=; b=kOTdTctMyxmBKcGkQqbxUfXv2Iau52TVTNi+Pbmh197NTWNbTFV9XEDWRKA1VKDB3D Gq3ertex6UVgqQgqOCbsqqehMhQknrY9s7LvxsxP83Xao8dNhBHRhREjp4r/esZFsUBX eKwHrH0Lp6tdCpFnqDEVLtc+AeyqOB96NyShIg2SbvsfQHVFOlnCemb+nZXNa5484OiU gOQMlacS5N5ZAmWQWgTbjO17+s9oV3ZF1dzyNFf/7ueBbs1v/KDiafkuCCuXLDM4xrOT BV4O+LdV/QG4laX5NKV0kEA5N0pwn3QlyCJ+7vYKf5Y9Pkf7Y6jaf8g0OYxeu/IWDoBI xnww==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX7LQH/6Ci7KaZAJ3zu0+EyXtA2cHZ8+cxH2ikK7jdkfmgjmRpjD GdFCg6dkHzfZLMeRq8baK9iBQu9Os4gP5WR7hwo41Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMamlb3YAzmgxiJ9Usx6fdTQw8dTWAnlc4pEcKlf8IvZYBdlhosgu4ygMKQ8rvW3kkYDnPCHbic7mbQtspaCRrM=
X-Received: by 10.36.172.31 with SMTP id s31mr17463331ite.124.1511162930713; Sun, 19 Nov 2017 23:28:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.16.155 with HTTP; Sun, 19 Nov 2017 23:28:30 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAFU7BASwgLfkO-4kk9-vba_P+jmcFHD5+Hy_7b3cnNkOSv30wg@mail.gmail.com>
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>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 16:28:30 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr3pKk22Hkxy4_8YMZYiA4Wwp=6JzdRDKFGdTY1gf=ntfA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: problem statement [was Re: New Version Notification for draft-hinden-ipv4flag-00.txt]
To: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
Cc: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>, IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1fc0f8afa54a055e65098e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Pn_ByFuPikLK8K_b2lOlkcKqIn8>
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: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 07:28:53 -0000

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>; wrote:

> The idea of using a protocol X to tell device 'there is no protocol X
> on this link' sounds very entertaining ;)
> If I run a single-stack network I do not want to configure IPv4
> addresses, dhcp relays etc on v6-only interfaces
> and most likely I have no desire to run DHCPv4 for those segments. I
> might not even allow v4 traffic on the link at all
> (as it reduces the attack surface).
>

Sure. But you wouldn't need complicated infrastructure for this - if all
that's necessary is to respond to a DHCPv4 request with a canned "no DHCPv4
here" packet that is always the same, that's a lot easier to deploy than a
full DHCPv4 infrastructure.