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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Bert,

On 28-May-19 12:17, Manfredi (US), Albert E wrote:

<snip>

> Honestly, the rest is the hosts' problem. For example, those hosts that fuss over battery life. Not a netadmin problem. Let the vendors figure it out.

That seems like a very high-handed approach. The proposal is a specific mechanism to help the host operating system figure it out by announcing the *intent* of the operators. Don't you think there is an obligation on service providers to tell their users what services are intentionally no longer available?

If you commuted to work on the #400 or the #600 bus, wouldn't you think the bus operator was obliged to tell you that the #400 was not running any more? Probably by posting a notice on board the #600?

Now, we can decide to issue this notice in an IPv6 protocol that is pretty much obligatory and universal (i.e. RAs) or we can decide to issue it in a non-universal way such as DHCPv6, PVDs, NETCONF, etc. But my prediction is that we will end up issuing it one way or another, even if not all operators see the need today.

    Brian