IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Mon, 27 May 2019 22:20 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
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 0E4811200B4 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 May 2019 15:20:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=steffann.nl
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 ga_foIVhf_zw for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 May 2019 15:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [IPv6:2001:9e0:803::6]) (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 A1F351200A1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 May 2019 15:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26F3360; Tue, 28 May 2019 00:20:49 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:in-reply-to:date:date:subject:subject :mime-version:content-type:content-type:message-id:from:from :received:received; s=mail; t=1558995646; bh=V//g4PVnZqeATyUurKR eSRjuw5RT/geMv+pAcknU8XI=; b=gE7Xbr0y1V0RTZJoOaRTc/pucp4jZxZRqYB Vbv97i9/PNCA8QxLt7leva8+N/gdGYJCokaLvVg2oB8cv2xLVpdXSe4V4PxH0aqR 1w/8SlReFa9YCl1CJ91y6EOToDzKwgYM8gjNb+HjRbymOeFh2xyiRE3dTkA4hwd1 AWuTdcHY=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 5QGStSBDpHCg; Tue, 28 May 2019 00:20:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:68e9:9524:4ee2:c419] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:68e9:9524:4ee2:c419]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4D2F25A; Tue, 28 May 2019 00:20:46 +0200 (CEST)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Message-Id: <374F009B-98E1-40D0-AC0D-1C82CBE378BD@steffann.nl>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4E59580D-F95C-4CD0-8B9C-179216AF9916"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Subject: Re: Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05
Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 00:20:45 +0200
In-Reply-To: <12db9629-f92a-e12a-5ff1-7db2c5d2137e@foobar.org>
Cc: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
References: <F8BFFCAD-E58E-4736-8A1C-56579B6F6032@employees.org> <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> <m1hQ7Dm-0000M3C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAN-Dau040j6U+1CCn0QJiVMy2nVShHqqSFdCkM-FbMAH-2wjRA@mail.gmail.com> <m1hQCYr-0000KBC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <561d9dc3-c769-c774-8f65-f975ac2a10a0@gont.com.ar> <m1hT1DZ-0000HEC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <ce07ade8-5105-055f-4798-f4ef20a2393c@si6networks.com> <CAN-Dau02MYCrKx2BgyuYJeHBdoz6SHCnp+-byM+LMM8af0S+rA@mail.gmail.com> <40e99171-6dda-29e3-6152-da5ca5219ed9@foobar.org> <CAN-Dau0ALqfAA-Dz56oHAfOtY7E2obx5E7TgoeH357Mckp3t9g@mail.gmail.com> <093ba8e2-6f0a-4c91-9df1-cda33fffea97@foobar.org> <CAN-Dau3kVqb+ZEHB7iPGeRuq1Mu8UHR3FEZv8SgmiqZexaFhuA@mail.gmail.com> <12db9629-f92a-e12a-5ff1-7db2c5d2137e@foobar.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/rrXhiDgHujvPDxzBuQ2oNS4kcgE>
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, 27 May 2019 22:20:54 -0000

Hi Nick,

> Op 27 mei 2019, om 23:08 heeft Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> David Farmer wrote on 27/05/2019 20:23:
>> But it's not DHCPv4 we're actually talking about but the robustness IPv4 to a failure of DHCPv4.  So let's be clear, Philip is proposing reducing the robustness of IPv4 in the presence of IPv6, at least the robustness of on-link communications with IPv4. Whereas using the flag only reduces the robustness of IPv4 in the presence of the IPv6-Only Flag. While I'm fine with either option, many people objected to tying IPv4 and IPv6 together, but which of these two options does more violence to IPv4?
> 
> personally, I don't think either of these options is compelling - and separately, would tend to agree with the idea that causing different protocols to share fate is something that should be avoided, unless there are overwhelmingly good reasons to do so.  So the question of which "does more violence to ipv4" seems more like a question along the lines of "each option has its problems, but which is the least bad?", to which I'm inclined to answer: "well, neither is necessary, nor advisable, so maybe neither option would be best".

I agree.

I think for migrating to IPv6 the RFC2563 option is perfectly acceptable: as long as you have IPv4 clients on your network, tell them in their own "language" that there is no IPv4 service on this link. When those clients disappear over time stop providing DHCPv4 completely and happily enjoy a clean IPv6 network. There won't even be a legacy ipv6only flag ;)

Cheers,
Sander

PS: yes, I know there are some with a purist "I don't want ANY non-IPv6 packet on my network" view, but seriously, let's focus on real-life problems…

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email