Re: Alternatives to the flag (Was:Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05)

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com> Thu, 16 May 2019 07:56 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 D562F12004D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 May 2019 00:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 2k6s7DJhiXZ0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 May 2019 00:56:42 -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 49E88120047 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 May 2019 00:56:40 -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 m1hRBFg-0000KRC; Thu, 16 May 2019 09:56:32 +0200
Message-Id: <m1hRBFg-0000KRC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Alternatives to the flag (Was: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> <a2465e81-a17f-ab48-efda-20fe12a70077@foobar.org> <30239E0C-C444-4A7E-8342-AEE47BF8A2BB@employees.org> <20190505200449.GB7546@vurt.meerval.net> <80073906-c3c0-1f22-9e7f-c2b349063936@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2xzVW3m0mN7jEn8SYyYCYhrufVnkfp3rBjJcijBkvucNQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACWOCC-35yVYXSRR0sRL-MBMHyOFZtJx9E9h14G8qqVh5T7qGA@mail.gmail.com> <232c1a43-0fd9-4eae-737b-260a3906f72a@gmail.com> <663F6C0B-7B8A-4088-B9C0-B2867B0C3EB8@gmail.com> <CAN-Dau3VJN7qNHAW-yStMrDRCa4vsDs2ObkAxswnYbcHde2t_w@mail.gmail.com> <m1hPqHO-0000J8C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAN-Dau3R=4JbcbK7tWkJKYzVjq7DvAAEjVsbCLbZdYYO8OJ0YA@mail.gmail.com> <m1hQ7Dm-0000M3C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAN-Dau040j6U+1CCn0QJiVMy2nVShHqqSFdCkM-FbMAH-2wjRA@mail.gmail.com> <m1hQCYr-0000KBC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAN-Dau3Lcv3qTBVtig36RfbQKuGpoqdTLfrM=eWfYxCCQRy5Sw@mail.gmail.com> <m1hQfSy-0000LTC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAN-Dau3akjaZ-j16ucOY=-d0nabG4ZdFs6wrSD4EGr3NEh9Wsw@mail.gmail.com> <a6 46a186-be05-cdff-c8e4-61cf09930494@foobar.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 15 May 2019 14:34:29 +0100 ." <a646a186-be05-cdff-c8e4-61cf09930494@foobar.org>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 09:56:30 +0200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/TVlfrvje1sI3YFKil8UvoUMA1u8>
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: Thu, 16 May 2019 07:56:45 -0000

>> So I think we either need the flag or disable RFC 3927 by default on 
>> dual-stack hosts.
>
>RFC 2563 already specifies a protocol to turn off ipv4 LLs.

Keeping IPv4 link local off by default on links with IPv6 provides a clear
path forward to IPv6-only. It provides a clear expectation that without
DHCPv4 there will be no IPv4.

I.e., IPv4 should be off by default and not something that needs to be
filtered. 

Of course that doesn't kill DHCPv4 DISCOVER. But that is something I think
we can live with until hosts have their IPv4 stacks turned off by default.