IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com> Mon, 13 May 2019 09:26 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 896A81200FC for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 May 2019 02:26:17 -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 wZEHGW1B1t18 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 May 2019 02:26:15 -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 2C91E120077 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 May 2019 02:26:14 -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 m1hQ7Dm-0000M3C; Mon, 13 May 2019 11:26:10 +0200
Message-Id: <m1hQ7Dm-0000M3C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
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> <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>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 12 May 2019 11:40:07 -0500 ." <CAN-Dau3R=4JbcbK7tWkJKYzVjq7DvAAEjVsbCLbZdYYO8OJ0YA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 11:26:07 +0200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/neWtWIk509ya-u0SzflcCqs_GCY>
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: Mon, 13 May 2019 09:26:18 -0000

>The problem is, without a flag to clearly designate a network as IPv6-Only,
>then with your proposal if the DHCPv4 server on a dual-stack network ever
>decides to not grant an IPv4 address to a client, due to a misconfiguration
>or it simply crashes, then that client will inappropriately disable
>RFC3927.  Whereas with a flag declaring a network as IPv6-Only, RFC3927 is
>only inappropriately disabled when two misconfigurations or a
>misconfiguration and a problem occurs.

This strikes me as a bad trade-off. You propose that every network that
doesn't want IPv4 link local has to set a flag just to help the rare case
of a DHCPv4 server failing and users able to get useful work done using
IPv4 link local.

So instead of letting IPv4 die. We would add a flag to IPv6 to help in the
case IPv4 has a problem. Does that make any sense?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email