Re: IPv4 traffic on "ietf-v6ONLY"

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Wed, 15 November 2017 18:33 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
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 2625D126C22 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 10:33:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 FgM1Q22xP9Un for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 10:33:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) (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 3E3D1124B17 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 10:33:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC1003AD28D; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 18:33:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABA0616008D; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 18:33:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94604160087; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 18:33:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 17jmDsxPvHyi; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 18:33:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [172.30.42.88] (c27-253-115-14.carlnfd2.nsw.optusnet.com.au [27.253.115.14]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1C2AA16003F; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 18:33:08 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: IPv4 traffic on "ietf-v6ONLY"
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (15B150)
In-Reply-To: <bcebb0db-9092-6147-0a94-1c5c23d71e5d@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 05:33:05 +1100
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4E59E93D-03F0-4146-AD81-DA8AEE5255F6@isc.org>
References: <f9805855-68cf-a3e8-a13f-c6ac31b09058@gmail.com> <bbd4e1d2-047f-6758-76f8-fd591c51dad7@gmail.com> <D631CE54.8C0F5%lee@asgard.org> <m1eEvEP-0000G3C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <5655992F-737A-4223-A917-63CAD6DF7A1D@cisco.com> <CAHw9_iKb8oUP_XzPPCJp1cgBHZeE1aRpGB6UTZS8qvy80KVMig@mail.gmail.com> <bcebb0db-9092-6147-0a94-1c5c23d71e5d@gmail.com>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ffaljdvkaqot_BfKEGV7XrKcqBY>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 18:33:26 -0000

Do we provide a DHCPv6 server and set the O bit in the RA to provide the DNS server addresses?  Manual config shouldn’t be required if we do that unless your OS is broken. I’m not on site to check. 

-- 
Mark Andrews

> On 16 Nov 2017, at 00:29, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> Le 15/11/2017 à 12:30, Warren Kumari a écrit :
>>> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) <rajiva@cisco.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Of course, a DHCPv4 option conflicts with the goal of some people to have
>>> no IPv4 related infrastructure at all.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  Perhaps, define a DHCPv6 option to convey v6-only, for which the client
>>> interpretation should be to suppress v4.
>> Can someone remind me what problem we are trying to solve?
> 
> To me, the problem comes mainly from the impossibility to say "IPv6-only".
> 
> It's not just a terminology problem.  There are bad side-effects of abusing the term "IPv6-only".  Some people claim that IPv6 is there already, because there are "IPv6-only" networks.  But there are no "IPv6-only" networks at all.  (except in some very rare cases that are not visible at IETF nor at mobile network operators.)
> 
> Another problem can be related to that wireless network efficiency (too many useless IPv4 packets on the air of "ietf-v6ONLY").
> 
> The 'noise' problem is symmetric - valid in IPv4 too.  The person at the IETF ticketing system tells me I have to go meet them to manually remove the DNS Server IPv6 address that the "ietf" SSID has put on my Windows and that stays there forever.  That DNS IPv6 address makes noise on my corporate IPv4-only network.  I suppose the person does not want me to go there at each IETF for that manual operation.  That's a speculation of a problem too.  Maybe he has some magic means (a protocol?) that makes that the DNS IPv6 address has a lifetime, or so.
> 
> Alex
> 
>> W
>>> 
>>> Although this will be at the cross road with allowing client’s wishes to use
>>> v4 LL for whatever useless/useful traffic, it would be a reasonable
>>> deployment policy to enforce.
>>> 
>>> We have to remember that allowing this would continue to hurt WLAN (not
>>> wired LAN) for obvious reasons - radio bandwidth.
>>> 
>>> During one of ciscolive conferences, i recall having observed lots of
>>> useless v4 traffic (e.g. discovery) on WLAN.  Andrew (cced) may remember
>>> more details.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Rajiv
>>> 
>>> On Nov 15, 2017, at 5:48 AM, Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-4@u-1.phicoh.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Does that return us to the question of how to tell hosts that IPv4
>>> 
>>> doesnt live here, and to stop trying?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The safest option to do that is a DHCPv4 option that says 'no IPv4 service
>>> here, go away'.
>>> 
>>> Any network that has IPv4 production traffic already has to protect against
>>> rogue DHCPv4 servers.
>>> 
>>> Of course, a DHCPv4 option conflicts with the goal of some people to have
>>> no IPv4 related infrastructure at all.
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>> ipv6@ietf.org
>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>> ipv6@ietf.org
>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------