RE: Alternatives to the flag (Was:Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05)

["Manfredi (US), Albert E" <[e-mail]>]

Strange blog, ISP often written IPS, and the incorporates some old and long obsolete news about “more secure,” particularly when it mentions end to end encryption and SeND.

Oh well. Not everyone religiously keeps up with 6man, eh?

Bert


From: ipv6 <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Gyan Mishra
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2019 19:49
To: Mark Smith <[e-mail]>
Cc: 6man WG <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Alternatives to the flag (Was:Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05)


Verizon fios is behind on dual stacking unfortunately but in this link they do talk about ISPs going to IPv6 only for customers..

Makes a lot of sense for all broadband providers to go IPv6 only for security but also pulling back IPv4 as space is limited even though CG nat has allowed the reserved block to be allocated to help prolong IPv4 usage not good for IPv6 but their is major gains to be made still for both broadband and 4G and 5G providers to go IPv6 only even well before enterprises get there and lastly the content providers trailing at the very end.

Just thinking about from a broadband or 4G perspective how to access IPv4 resources on the internet once you are IPv6 only how would the broadband providers accomplish that.

So a 6to4 proxy gateway would provide web but in reality you need a dynamic nat 6to4 gateway for all service ports.

Most customers use web port 80 and 444 are the primary ports but ssh port 22 would be good and also all flavors of VPN being translated 6to4 dynamically.

Something to think about for the future of an IPv6 only world at the access layer world wide from broadband and WiFi to wireless 4G 5G to enterprises to eventually content providers and hosting services.

Excerpt from link below:

WHY SHOULD VERIZON MAKE IPV6 AVAILABLE FOR CUSTOMERS?

To be clear, Verizon and all other IPS providers still have IPv4 addresses to issue. IPv4 address aren’t running out right away, and the change to IPv6 isn’t happening overnight. But it is happening. IPv6 coverage is increasing every year. There are several major advantages for ISPs to upgrade as soon as possible.

While the percentage of strictly IPv6-only sites is relatively small, none of them are accessible to current Verizon customers. Many other IPS customers can see these sites.

Additionally, IPv6 is more secure. Once the switch to IPv6 is made, IPv4 can be turned off. This will help reduce global cyber attacks and other large-scale hacking. The vulnerabilities of IPv4 are already well-known. But IPv6 uses end-to-end encryption, Secure Neighbor Discovery protocol and other sophisticated security procedures.

Plus, IPv4 was never supposed to be the final version of the Internet. Early internet pioneer Vint Cerf said IPv4 is “the experimental version of the Internet.”<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17GtmwyvmWE#t=1620> IPv6 is considered the more complete and secure version of the Internet – the world has basically been using a beta version this whole time!



https://www.ipv6.com/blog/how-long-will-verizon-take-to-make-ipv6-available-to-fios-customers-we-believe-its-time/#Verizon_Fios_Upgrades
Sent from my iPhone

On May 16, 2019, at 7:19 PM, Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
That’s pretty cool.

I’ll have to try both the LL and global uni printing at home.  Also try the IPv4 LL printing.

So I guess if dhcp option was set to disable IPv4 link local and on your home network your broadband router supported setting the IPv6 only flag so you could turn off IPv4 and your router went down you could still print via IPv6 LL just as you did in your scenario.

I guess I could convert my home network to IPv6 only and build V4 and V6 port forwarding rules back to my IPv6 only severs at home.

Gyan

Sent from my iPhone


On May 15, 2019, at 9:01 PM, Mark Smith <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

On Thu, 16 May 2019 at 06:45, Brian E Carpenter
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

On 16-May-19 01:34, Nick Hilliard wrote:
David Farmer wrote on 15/05/2019 14:27:
So, I'm not willing to drop what I think is a viable solution to the
problem unless other stakeholders are willing to buy into this kind of
change. In particular, I'm thinking the people maintaining mDNS in dnssd
wg. I can't see making the change proposed above without their buy-in.
[...]
So I think we either need the flag or disable RFC 3927 by default on
dual-stack hosts.

RFC 2563 already specifies a protocol to turn off ipv4 LLs.

Yes, an IPv4-based mechanism. The proposal stipulates that we want a mechanism for IPv6-only networks to signal to dual-stack hosts, as did draft-ietf-sunset4-noipv4. That is of course looking to the future, not to most current networks.


IPv6 Only means only IPv6.


  Brian


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------