IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Deprecating IPv6 (Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00)

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Thu, 08 June 2017 11:35 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@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 5DBB312EAA4 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 04:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 A5JUUHP9Tpkc for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 04:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x232.google.com (mail-vk0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::232]) (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 3F82612E04F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 04:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x232.google.com with SMTP id p62so15760923vkp.0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 08 Jun 2017 04:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
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=9c4fxeeZ7PMu7XYktFGjy9x9WlebxGhWILAi48ld4R0=; b=UlAqYFMw9NlAoKkNE7cvrWpCSHoHTM50gR/mc8ZtOdLJ1WDgH051nMgZrFh8crVnFP MVy9fjf4FCJgxjOA4ZvbcyAAzEXQM0T7m2pvmN/bVUC+wIt/rOpF6Uw4C2x1Bub/koqA nHCbVKnh9k3nfSckuwSh+Dx+6y+96byG2cerix3/srctXuVITZ1AgTgBa/CXYhDqj8Rk avRqSbwXL0z7W90YFk3hDELYl+xCecoK1nfioLJEl78lfenOebwXBiAFvNvwnqINhK2a DjDTkmb6RzfF4gjCKEfIWS3dd2zZsMIZNWmpnnPMTIe9BM4krJbqiHDBBvWOviycA/VL YsPA==
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=9c4fxeeZ7PMu7XYktFGjy9x9WlebxGhWILAi48ld4R0=; b=doRBAO4dDWQpaGq/Wi11o4GYPvu+VFNLI4pwTqP8bMdkk/K5oUR2L3En9cYzWcb3Rc IzZP3Qv7wOKCPjvsjL+YRvphJ0H+pFBsnh8Il0+bHwNATHCOmnRBjWYsSy4+9yXZ/L5I VmTe/zB+GoSqPXSGsofIkZcUKxWIRmqrngF8px+m9gdN/UlUUZs/iQZPfm33WAe3mInS GFabb5IoEqRYYKJWPNRl3SbvKWsVEtpevF2+Si8vB8yQLlY8Q83d+rNE7gID1mxY81YA Kd2Rb+boRMZE91XS/Z1PZIJ3AxaLuKwYF2gdkkqvAE+qjsKGplN8qGzjWLvZPirIRFqo ie4Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcDIZmKeFaepFcS7d0uwozDerHxduFNHUr0376LKn6yL63SOVQKl h5AJ56AlDU2OJIayU4SY5y2uec9xniYI
X-Received: by 10.31.64.130 with SMTP id n124mr7060110vka.44.1496921739051; Thu, 08 Jun 2017 04:35:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.12.139 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 04:35:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <8678F73D-2CCD-4781-9947-8C07182DFAF4@google.com>
References: <CAO42Z2wp72j-yOsR8C=iqS+dX14wLwthAtOTvD5ugj_NQ=NQag@mail.gmail.com> <8be34ef8-557f-652e-0d2f-f1a1e008bffd@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1706050827290.17963@uplift.swm.pp.se> <E2B77C58-B235-49D6-8130-0B41BE55899C@google.com> <CAAedzxrkbywKMmUaZ6-OCunXe1sw=q3+TNz278xZDmdsQm3xaw@mail.gmail.com> <93C6138E-A2EE-4005-8C16-05E2A2DEA661@google.com> <CAKD1Yr3+pHFhCwoL4vbQLDQ3PNGpijci8c7eZM=Gb0oTy9C0XA@mail.gmail.com> <8678F73D-2CCD-4781-9947-8C07182DFAF4@google.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 20:35:17 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr2upJBU9Arrg1TnkOKtshZ_MsWfJs_SXWrO4YV4NAA8ag@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Deprecating IPv6 (Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00)
To: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Cc: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114479a684302c0551714036"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/rw2VcezEq4i-aFHpWE7hwVQsPiw>
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, 08 Jun 2017 11:35:42 -0000

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 3:41 AM, james woodyatt <jhw@google.com> wrote:

> Thread™ 1.1 doesn’t even use RFC 4861 much less RFC 6775. A proxy for RFC
> 4861 at the Thread™ 1.1 border router would require DAD and NUD to be
> translated into prohibitively expensive multicast floods into the mesh. Use
> of IPv6/NAT allows the border router to make an entire Thread™ mesh reach
> the public Internet via the one stable IPv6 address that is reliably
> available on all residential networks with IPv6 providers.
>

If thread doesn't use RFC 4861, then it probably uses address registration?
If so it's trivial: have the BR do the work of replying to DAD and NS, for
only the addresses that exist in the mesh.


> For years, we have been hoping that HOMENET would address the basic
> problem here, but now that it's clear the forthcoming update to RFC 7084
> will not recommend adoption of the HOMENET protocol suite in IPv6 CPE
> residential gateways, Thread™ has no other option than to recommend
> IPv6/NAT to cope with operational reality.
>

That sounds like a false dichotomy to me.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email