IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-03.txt

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Wed, 24 October 2018 08:44 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.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 8262D130E72 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 01:44:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.633
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.633 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 ueVF7qxMHHar for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 01:44:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E99AC130E70 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 01:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id w9O8i56Z126101 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 10:44:05 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 2C62B201B91 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 10:44:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.12]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2301E202F74 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 10:44:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.8.34.184] (is227335.intra.cea.fr [10.8.34.184]) by muguet1-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id w9O8i4RE028070 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 10:44:05 +0200
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-03.txt
To: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <153973137181.9473.10666616544238076833@ietfa.amsl.com> <092346e1-6350-e54e-e711-9c5ee6dc4e6b@gmail.com> <4a883ed6-c0d7-5d3f-9657-3ba0476919e0@foobar.org> <6952EE88-B3D6-48BC-ACFF-C5248965EDC9@employees.org> <61706f85-cf3a-1a03-0371-30fe3eaaec6f@foobar.org> <2afa8333-fad3-3a26-0466-2ed3bd1e0c9c@gmail.com> <3F8BCD30-DEE4-44B8-BF45-CAB75F21B11A@jisc.ac.uk>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5d704357-964c-b4a5-0bab-8f0b30b06f37@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 10:44:04 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3F8BCD30-DEE4-44B8-BF45-CAB75F21B11A@jisc.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Pq0lizuMTnW3bCA_9tptgUpFOjQ>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 08:44:10 -0000


Le 22/10/2018 à 12:04, Tim Chown a écrit :
>> On 22 Oct 2018, at 02:00, Brian E Carpenter
>> <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On 2018-10-22 09:25, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>>> 
>>> What's happened now is that a new revision of the draft has been
>>> posted, and the process of posting it seems to have white-washed
>>> all the outstanding technical issues.
>> 
>> If by "white-wash" you mean "observe that they are side-issues for 
>> the proposed mechanism", you'd be right. This isn't about the best
>> way to ensure IPv6-onlyness of a link; it's about one particular
>> mechanism towards that goal. We could say less, or nothing at all,
>> about other such mechanisms.
>> 
>> The WG may of course conclude that the mechanism isn't worth the
>> bother. If that's the conclusion, the draft will not advance.
> 
> I'm currently leaning to the "don't bother" side.
> 
> There is currently no evidence of any vendor interest in implementing
> support for the flag.

Well, maybe not in RA, but certainly there is huge vendor support on
cellular links of a similar functionality: PDP type IPv6 (option among 
IPv4, IPv6 and IPv4IPv6).

Earlier, some of these vendors moved from IPv6 w/o any RA, to some RA
functionality.  In this direction one could expect these vendors to move
that functionality (specify PDP type to be IPv6) from link-layer
messaging to RA.

But yes, it is just speculation on my side.

> Were they to come forward, I suspect interpretation and
> implementation would vary, given the vagueness of the flag's nature
> as a hint, causing inconsistent behaviour between various
> hosts/devices.

I agree.

Alex

> 
> Tim
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative
> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email