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

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

Bert,

Two brief comments:
On 12-May-19 11:45, Manfredi (US), Albert E wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Philip Homburg
> 
>> This draft adds almost nothing over what can be achieved with a few
> heuristics.
> 
> +1.
> 
> (In case some have the mistaken notion that only a couple of stray cats are opposed.)

1) The whole argument basically is whether it's "almost nothing" or "something useful", and that very much depends on the deployment scenario, now or at some unknown time in the future.

2) sunset4 failed to document such heuristics. In this thread we have the makings of a useful set of heuristics, with or without the ipv6only flag. But that would presumably be v6ops or opsawg territory.

Regards
   Brian
 
> There will no doubt be a time when equipment vendors will leave IPv4 off by default, and only turn it on if there's some site that can't be reached with IPv6. Like, DNS only sends an A record. That time will come with or without this flag.
> 
> I totally agree with those who say that "this flag adds a heuristic." But what bothers me more than a little is, is that reason enough? To merely add a heuristic to a bunch that already exist, requiring a change to the protocol? And perhaps more problematic, to change a protocol to suggest a totally different protocol should be disregarded? What next?
> 
> Thinking of this in terms of religious fundamentalism, it sounds quite politically incorrect! ;)
> 
> Bert
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>