Re: problem statement [was Re: New Version Notification for draft-hinden-ipv4flag-00.txt]

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Tue, 21 November 2017 12:32 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 7421D129480 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 04:32:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 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_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 wPEY7tj3mOoJ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 04:32:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (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 6D87A12947B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 04:32:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 0C911B1; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 13:32:44 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1511267564; bh=xW5caPp8gErKLjB0EcohUqRHvL01kIdkpQ7GePLhsdA=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=R12Q1Zbb33WoZMNguZiezJAXN+jirBq3B3R7xk2xoyHSjYZWaY8EQXsVQkh56NcZW bELEDagAQJh+qM62wwV7qNsqxT3d4IuOaePnGEgyysbzJEzN8t2CG1fEyhht6OXwX8 uxPQ6VCxHPBlrisAMpMd0ZB5bqIlD8BaFKpN8t4M=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0894CB0; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 13:32:44 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 13:32:44 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
cc: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: problem statement [was Re: New Version Notification for draft-hinden-ipv4flag-00.txt]
In-Reply-To: <B8EC63CA-CCD7-4124-A9A5-1A12C65D70F8@employees.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711211330410.32099@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <151090059151.22321.3357672601322845792.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <E838C63E-7612-4AA4-9375-854C184D699E@gmail.com> <CAFU7BAQKoWPcEFQZgU3k_d0gUL4en6d2pyNq1V4RMNZ6HrSG8w@mail.gmail.com> <649be36e-5006-7688-448f-bc2794d6a39c@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3WC+vwL_=0PeiJ_D85NqFVTCkb8c83x-ZtGhAbSELGMA@mail.gmail.com> <5A119443.2030108@foobar.org> <CAFU7BASwgLfkO-4kk9-vba_P+jmcFHD5+Hy_7b3cnNkOSv30wg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3pKk22Hkxy4_8YMZYiA4Wwp=6JzdRDKFGdTY1gf=ntfA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711200848390.32099@uplift.swm.pp.se> <5A12FBE4.9030101@foobar.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711210647151.32099@uplift.swm.pp.se> <B8EC63CA-CCD7-4124-A9A5-1A12C65D70F8@employees.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/uFJddPN7vwmxCIXOUsb1O6l8e3c>
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: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 12:32:49 -0000

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Ole Troan wrote:

> We might consider disabling IPv4 on a network in the same fashion that we did it for AppleTalk, Apollo Domain, Banyan VINES, DECNet, CLNS, XNS, IPX...
>
> This isn't a new problem.

The new thing is that most devices nowadays are connected using radio and 
not wired, the way they were before. Also, back on those days security 
typically wasn't high on the agenda. How many worried about MITM attacks 
on those protocols?

Also, they were typically used in managed environments. BYOD wasn't really 
a thing back then.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se