IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com> Sat, 11 May 2019 09:42 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 177DA12012F for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 May 2019 02:42:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.302
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT=0.598] autolearn=no 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 7RMytg1TYFpF for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 May 2019 02:42:34 -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 1E8B2120113 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 May 2019 02:42:34 -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 m1hPOWV-0000KSC; Sat, 11 May 2019 11:42:31 +0200
Message-Id: <m1hPOWV-0000KSC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Cc: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net>
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> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1905091054560.1824@uplift.swm.pp.se> <m1hOfjp-0000IdC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <924a4e34-e5f9-9872-bd4a-c0f68fd5387f@gmail.com> <m1hP1uA-0000EhC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <12F17008-16C5-4E58-89DB-BC7D01341CD7@lists.zabbadoz.net> <m1hP6gP-0000E7C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <0C26A308-E3B1-4C7B-B786-AAB79878B722@lists.zabbadoz.net>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 10 May 2019 17:31:42 +0000 ." <0C26A308-E3B1-4C7B-B786-AAB79878B722@lists.zabbadoz.net>
Date: Sat, 11 May 2019 11:42:31 +0200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/aZlZwZaY-s7dB7UmdBM0QKEsqEY>
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: Sat, 11 May 2019 09:42:36 -0000

>So you don’t like the IPv6-only bit, you turn its processing off even 
>if it’s implemented.  Maybe it’s even off by default (for the next 
>year until your OS vendor thinks the times have changed).  Either way, 
>you have full control.  What more can you ask for than a total off 
>switch?  Save 40 lines of code?

For those who think that this flag is not needed, it doesn't help to
say that the flag can be off.

For network operators who are worried, it doesn't help to say that the user
can turn it off. 

>
>Ever wondered how much delay you have with dhclient running on an 
>IPv6-only network (without this flag)?  But that’s a matter of the 
>startup framework and software used in this particular case and not 
>necessarily generally applicable.  Anyway, you still have to say you 
>want IPv6 for it to run in first place.

Most networks today are IPv4-only. Delaying the common case by
3 seconds strikes me as weird. Also a good reason for users to keep the
flag off. Which makes the whole thing rather useless.

This draft adds almost nothing over what can be achieved with a few
heuristics.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email