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

Raymond Burkholder <ray@oneunified.net> Tue, 28 May 2019 01:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ray@oneunified.net>
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 737EB12008A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 May 2019 18:07:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 gkjP_fz-xfmo for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 May 2019 18:07:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.oneunified.net (mail1.oneunified.net [63.85.42.215]) (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 A15A3120045 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 May 2019 18:07:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-One-Unified-MailScanner-Watermark: 1559610441.51608@i3ea2UM7m/GP2nEIS4XVpA
X-One-Unified-MailScanner-From: ray@oneunified.net
X-One-Unified-MailScanner: Not scanned: postmaster@oneunified.net
X-One-Unified-MailScanner-ID: x4S178ww021066
X-OneUnified-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
Received: from [10.55.40.146] (h96-45-2-121-eidnet.org.2.45.96.in-addr.arpa [96.45.2.121] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail1.oneunified.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id x4S178ww021066 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 May 2019 01:07:19 GMT
Subject: Re: Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05
To: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <F8BFFCAD-E58E-4736-8A1C-56579B6F6032@employees.org> <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> <374F009B -98E1-40D0-AC0D-1C82CBE378BD@steffann.nl> <CAN-Dau0EGN+bLZCTA-A4ksd40KprhKn-HkL4gotG=v-=kD0zrg@mail.gmail.com> <F6F0C9DC-545E-4FE5-BB4C-55BB29022E84@steffann.nl> <e191d0f2-235b-bc97-2a02-878783c4c308@gmail.com>
From: Raymond Burkholder <ray@oneunified.net>
Organization: One Unified Net Limited
Message-ID: <e3078d9a-c4ef-abb5-aae5-e5381332fb20@oneunified.net>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 19:07:07 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <e191d0f2-235b-bc97-2a02-878783c4c308@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/wWSXLt8HFUqqrrImytqTAhz0ixg>
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: Tue, 28 May 2019 01:07:27 -0000

On 2019-05-27 5:54 p.m., Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Then stop telling people to filter Ethertype 0x0800 because you can't use RFC2563 in the presence of such filters.
>> Those are different options, depending on your situation.
> Well, yes. But if an operator chooses to filter 0x0800 and wishes to actively
> inform hosts that IPv4 is unavailable, only an IPv6 mechanism can do so.
> So here we are.
'only an IPv6 mechanism can do so'  -- is that necessarily true?

This time I did read through 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05.  I see 
there is an inclusion of the IPv4 Sunset draft for turning off ipv4 (and 
someone else did point out that the Sunset WG has been itself 
'sunsetted' I believe).

I also took a look at table called 'EtherType values for some notable 
protocols' at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EtherType

A network link may have many other protocols other than ipv4 or ipv6: 
PTP, MacSec, LLDP, PBB, CFM, RoCE, ATAoE, MPLS, PPPoE, .... not to 
mention STP and the like which is very noisy.  I didn't see a summary in 
the document of how that might be handled.

So I guess this is IPv6-only in the sense of IPv6 with no IPv4.

I can't remember if there was mention of IPv4 only hosts knowing how to 
evaluate an IPv6 flag in an IPv6 protocol, or how vendors 
would/could/want to implement such a thing.

Maybe rather than saying IPv6 only, maybe create another EtherType which 
network stacks would know how to interpret, and it could be used to turn 
off other protocols.  Maybe some networks might want to run IPv4 and 
turn off IPv6 (saying half jokingly).

This independent protocol could be used to turn off other protocols that 
the network stack might see as well.  The flags then become universally 
applicable to any stack that has been designed to interpret xxx-only 
flags.  It would then have long lasting applicability, as protocols come 
and go.

Raymond.