IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com> Tue, 28 May 2019 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.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 276C71202A3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 May 2019 09:00:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 xkSVsmhHqho6 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 May 2019 09:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (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 0C032120248 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 May 2019 09:00:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) (Smail #157) id m1hVeWz-0000HvC; Tue, 28 May 2019 18:00:53 +0200
Message-Id: <m1hVeWz-0000HvC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <F8BFFCAD-E58E-4736-8A1C-56579B6F6032@employees.org> <m1hQ7Dm-0000M3C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAN-Dau040j6U+1CCn0QJiVMy2nVShHqqSFdCkM-FbMAH-2wjRA@mail.gmail.com> <m1hQCYr-0000KBC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <561d9dc3-c769-c774-8f65-f975ac2a10a0@gont.com.ar> <m1hT1DZ-0000HEC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <ce07ade8-5105-055f-4798-f4ef20a2393c@si6networks.com> <CAN-Dau02MYCrKx2BgyuYJeHBdoz6SHCnp+-byM+LMM8af0S+rA@mail.gmail.com> <40e99171-6dda-29e3-6152-da5ca5219ed9@foobar.org> <CAN-Dau0ALqfAA-Dz56oHAfOtY7E2obx5E7TgoeH357Mckp3t9g@mail.gmail.com> <093ba8e2-6f0a-4c91-9df1-cda33fffea97@foobar.org> <CAN-Dau3kVqb+ZEHB7iPGeRuq1Mu8UHR3FEZv8SgmiqZexaFhuA@mail.gmail.com> <12db9629-f92a-e12a-5ff1-7db2c5d2137e@foobar.org> <F6F0C9DC-545E-4FE5-BB4C-55BB29022E84@steffann.nl> <CAO42Z2yUDi3FHOZsLrHqwLsEWkB1X9FREa8m6dU6ecOr=SsX4g@mail.gmail.com> <E51102E7-D4F0-4469-8888-5072F624EE06@steffann.nl> <CAN-Dau1S57wQ+3+m+m5grMe5N2SdfFqhELteSYfkmAC85_8H3w@mail.gmail.com> <8523a960-d551-1c24-d756-10c1840289de@foobar .org> <CAN-Dau27O9QB9MHhk81RsewwpH=xW=D1ZrUDmEq+WP0_Fyeh5Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 28 May 2019 09:57:15 -0500 ." <CAN-Dau27O9QB9MHhk81RsewwpH=xW=D1ZrUDmEq+WP0_Fyeh5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 18:00:49 +0200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/T5-a0TK42U2eUcYmchi1Z_0Pba0>
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: Tue, 28 May 2019 16:01:02 -0000

>Filtering by itself leaves hosts sending futile traffic and wasting battery
>power, and RFC2563 by itself leaves the network susceptible to hosts that
>ignore the signal from RFC2563.
>
>The requirement to do both seems perfectly reasonable to me. If you are
>going to ignore peoples requirements don't be surprised if they ignore your
>solutions.

It seems to me that any switch that can implement RA-guard can also limit
IPv4 traffic to just DHCPv4.

In addition, any host that is really concerned about battery lifetime can
just keep IPv4 LL disabled until needed by an application, i.e. a phone could
enable IPv4 LL only when the user wants to print something and other ways to 
discover a printer fail.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email