Re: IPv4 traffic on "ietf-v6ONLY"

Erik Kline <ek@google.com> Thu, 16 November 2017 10:42 UTC

Return-Path: <ek@google.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 D9897128D6F for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 02:42:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 kjuAjRRNvaUO for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 02:42:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22c.google.com (mail-yw0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D93A127873 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 02:42:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id q1so19002544ywh.5 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 02:42:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ijAAsE0nCQENW/tss+EaqTD99AkJYKQ6b1mxTzbE5B8=; b=Ok31KApcV/JTku8TwHmTOmLvf/Jysj6nbwsY1dYXDLpYQaVMqPqSbx5AF8vnUwJ+YI hq5SbIUtimNJN9z3MB1moG5TePtTtOfvHv8cwepu2jAWJvW7BayedM3OzXNltjWvz0Bu lMetz2LA5FCkMQAMOy+JWTXaV4KjkpBEL0+4bgmeoT6Nfvuq5p1KcL0tyotCuMiKtHen JKbLeyR12U+7675wXk5w8uqux5pNHNGfCB61MwxH90MTeSOMELye3SiIrUdrYsaLBrna /m2xgHP527Ho9kb4kgGhlsP3oVyjwdI0o8sqPU03DshbPih16mUMhe3USHj3A+YClmw1 T8oA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ijAAsE0nCQENW/tss+EaqTD99AkJYKQ6b1mxTzbE5B8=; b=qQPf7Llbi+9ybEmiHTazOr2a/3vmtvOlxvksD6ev1U5ajjbVthCKwfEd41M77irSPb B82F0Z8K5rc8nN5r4FSmUqETk7KQBjbLokMUNuqFIH1FeflIL3Biwstta+a6VYJ/ZQ8k 2v+yOcr4HVG5t56esd9dbG4xAoZKmqPeQoLHYmU0hjWeA4LC6HL8c8+VlpQCsvA0lSJ6 ei1l5Tdx8apduHU69jXedVB2LtjxKIYUHZrtpqFt6limQjBv4NJYvBUFZll9rEg9E+4h ObpfRaEpAAHk6FWIPg+MWQmi0RCaE8JWo7SbkPBBl4WKffPilKMOpp4ioTV9+lbHDXDd z+Hg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX6brrYP73rgnaKC93ZH6v5Rxtioekx5NdxXdBnGck597y9floMW 8KjxLJWh2i6A0EbPOeK/VB9qa0cMnYZX3cUtQvaD/YEK
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMYuBxskMhAQ0RSn/Yug44evnYqUCm0wvCIfnlnWYd0m3MTqt5TYv27iDe0zwsdD/yUP2qed7TeeDU63pphrsPw=
X-Received: by 10.37.129.129 with SMTP id p1mr603104ybk.273.1510828966911; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 02:42:46 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.5.146 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 02:42:26 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <85f11a44-6fb1-2a31-193c-bc2d6b42f52b@moth.iki.fi>
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> <0b565be0-e228-0879-ead5-3ba03e6d1c28@gmail.com> <m1eEwyn-0000GWC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <A6BA33CC-32F7-4EA0-A288-2C3B549BC9F0@cisco.com> <85f11a44-6fb1-2a31-193c-bc2d6b42f52b@moth.iki.fi>
From: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 10:42:26 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAedzxo+3WdpkuZ-2TxDB2iwqRSx3E8PJ_L_zkKmnSf6UBGyNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IPv4 traffic on "ietf-v6ONLY"
To: Markku Savela <msa@moth.iki.fi>
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="089e08267ee0ed2b3b055e174710"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/lFih0pYUlYVfkA1y3JE1sX7e9VI>
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: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 10:42:50 -0000

On 16 November 2017 at 10:39, Markku Savela <msa@moth.iki.fi> wrote:
> On 16/11/17 12:32, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
>>
>> While I do agree to RA being better than DHCP(v6) for the purpose
>> discussed here, I also agree with Philip wrt L-flag usage. PvD L-flag = 0
>> would not prohibit a host from using IPv4 on the access.
>>
>> We might be better off defining a new flag that explicitly indicates for
>> host to ‘Suppress IPv4’.
>>
>
> And, if the local network has multiple independent routers, this flag would
> be confusing, if one router says "Suppress IPv4", and the other provides
> IPv4 routing? A flag could just be "advisory"...

Since it would be new, it would almost inherently be advisory.

It could be the first flag in the EFO!  (if I'm not mistaken...)