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

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Sat, 11 May 2019 07:02 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@gmail.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 99E241200FB for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 May 2019 00:02:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 HIHDbj5NkABk for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 May 2019 00:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32f.google.com (mail-ot1-x32f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32f]) (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 0831712006E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 May 2019 00:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32f.google.com with SMTP id w6so7561476otl.7 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 May 2019 00:02:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=nby0HaWBZbqzjlfTwKrdfHrL6pxVkphZuibdPVsbvZk=; b=WHr5HyoCNYmgRXmb9/YPJFOFo6ExwZ1xDItoGOGRUKyhMQl3nwoJ4EKsBZlgoS23X1 pkJQb9nReVsdHwWjQtFQUgGYBj7JNUS1FQ6xczdJWP9/Gtj3RxYo58dYcG6vHXqLTlWx H9wXPj4gw3qsV/uHx8tO+rLOvhZkYn3C+m7bbUOdltjvSOdj2qV4oGcfBAFtWfm5+KVM juMqwxteJFex9cUiHsWgDJBovBlIX3vjd4J9JilfjtKS/yhQSfmrqDVoMg1jXztvepNC WFk1HVB0a3XqxnbLpsGBf7b5WJnmQoZ9dOQskottNj4KzqTA/ebbVxZG2bLOigzW+agI tZ/A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=nby0HaWBZbqzjlfTwKrdfHrL6pxVkphZuibdPVsbvZk=; b=YOfYR0TvjOT0iwI3NnC/IW6WDp2Aocv7gTeWOQjeYOYCpmFFvDkwjQ354zIGffc+vL lypZS0asjGugggkuno/QXhtg+9y5+SEfjrO6lWJHBmu7ubeW76tigrv2+Rh42J3IA6iL X1TbDse5aAFVNZ6HbF4We9DO0B7NCUpQnmfhPx8ACrfqUvn39ClIouL7NUZkT9Lv4b7u 7+/urWzoK7r4AhKr5SD4nzklIv5Yfbu3gql0P2sIWR9Y+spl0/BrjVJAJXoJtF9Ce/CW 7yKIRqOxhac9CguG4RbAQf+G7KcgS8d/bE/836A5sKI7QUWVsvAScbmstTlY+C6iUd2K 1fNw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXzSfIHfXOZvaephLA/YvQPNMR0mbp0tR2ZIkpMwX6sZzgansWI 2Q2NwOhEcVdzZlvwgk99nJXsh5kQe939cqRkt3k=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyVF5nQSPHX8VTgCeyb/QzHXum46qj2kwd3zkNHeUrEGDMdJ/jL/JpIESUazwOlewg73RV8urVPWsvzGmTGmUI=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1150:: with SMTP id x16mr9403016otq.285.1557558158337; Sat, 11 May 2019 00:02:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <F8BFFCAD-E58E-4736-8A1C-56579B6F6032@employees.org> <a2465e81-a17f-ab48-efda-20fe12a70077@foobar.org> <30239E0C-C444-4A7E-8342-AEE47BF8A2BB@employees.org> <8b9fd743-bfcc-525c-98f6-154f3fa713cc@foobar.org> <CAO42Z2zEWvt9NyemMb8H0AEvPvmNSDGa4wcXiS6n5yRxNFCHQg@mail.gmail.com> <c7e18765-be04-6494-8193-984dbccb520b@foobar.org> <CANMZLAYh+V57yrWOzmUyjSMK0g95u1D5_GZmyZBMOMKAZnrnCg@mail.gmail.com> <3F474511-6FE3-4A0A-9B84-7C37F08FBB5D@steffann.nl> <E352C226-C708-4418-BCDE-10525CAB109A@jisc.ac.uk> <652fb10e-b8ce-0151-a9a0-62d2378caed2@gmail.com> <0079c716-d56c-7199-f493-f5e56e1307ae@foobar.org> <b33de303-eaca-f7f6-804e-2c9343eb92a1@gmail.com> <6C4ABEF1-2565-4BA9-9FC5-5B3C45A719AD@gmail.com> <c2222416-6491-1906-a403-d012777a4b38@gmail.com> <CABNhwV0-SdKZqQa4z9jhpc8h1Eq=8UxRhtvHt1==BYEMTVRjug@mail.gmail.com> <96790121-7D50-4C6F-924F-87065B989E44@gmail.com> <ccab3694-54f2-bdd1-f8ac-cb159dbc0a81@gont.com.ar> <CAN-Dau0_w0n9C6grqi1bXAL-k239K7RMiQyhx5=c-Y_wqrV2OQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2wwftO6wtF7PAJ9CCK2iBvtOj0BQP7O0UREr-pMmPegvQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau2brdJ98bzFO76j+C=RCZSFpNg-eW0WCz_FYp9C_YSMjQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau2brdJ98bzFO76j+C=RCZSFpNg-eW0WCz_FYp9C_YSMjQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 11 May 2019 17:02:11 +1000
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2zeH1pOfMb=xbLw79LcNnQdnifbM5BFxewx7317-SF_cA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05
To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Cc: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/yKnXlgFN5JiXdU8VCYbatcA9D2A>
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: Sat, 11 May 2019 07:02:41 -0000

On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 01:22, David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> wrote:
>
> Sorry I had a premature launch of my message. :(
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 1:10 AM Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 9 May 2019 at 07:56, David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > The primary signal for a dual-stack host to not configure an IPv4 address should be the failure to receive an IPv4 address from a DHCPv4 Server [RFC2131].
>>
>>
>> The primary goal is to reduce and ideally entirely eliminate
>> link-layer broadcasts on the link caused by IPv4.
>>
>> DHCPDISCOVERS are link-layer broadcasts. Using any form of DHCPv4 to
>> disable IPv4 is directly counter to the primary goal.
>
>
>  As I see it, at least for the foreseeable future, we want dual-stack hosts to perform equally well on dual-stack networks as on IPv6-Only networks. So in my opinion, this means we don't want to completely eliminate DHCPDISCOVERS, at least at the beginning of the attachment process. Maybe someday in the future, IPv4 will become rare enough we can delay even these initial DHCPDISCOVERS, but at this point, I don't think that is a wise move.
>
> As I see it, we want a positive signal to dual-stack hosts that further DHCPDISCOVERS, after the initial few, are futile and can be stopped fairly quickly. But upon attachment to a network, at least for now, a dual-stack host should assume it is more likely to be attaching to a dual-stack network than to an IPv6-Only network. Therefore, it should send both an IPv6 ROUTER SOLICITATION and an IPv4 DHCPDISCOVER at roughly the same time, moments after the network attachment is stable.
>

I think this is going backwards. We already prefer IPv6 over IPv4 by
default in terms of address selection and in happy eyeballs.

IPv4 is the legacy protocol, delaying its startup until IPv6 has been
initialised is consistent with the IPv6 preference.


> On dual-stack networks, the host will receive a response to both of these queries and configure both IPv4 and IPv6. However, on an IPv6-Only network, the host will not receive any DHCPOFFERS in response to the DHCPDISCOVER, but it will get a response to the IPv6 ROUTER SOLICITATION, one or more ROUTER ADVERTISEMENTS, hopefully with this flag set. At this point, the dual-stack host knows it SHOULD NOT auto-configured an IPv4 Link-Local address [RFC3927]. But it doesn't know for sure that it won't get any DHCPOFFERS, before the dual-stack host can know that for sure, it needs to wait long enough to have received all possible ROUTER ADVERTISEMENTS and make sure all ROUTER ADVERTISEMENTS have this flag set.
>
> If the dual-stack host receives any DHCPOFFERS, it SHOULD accept one of them regardless of the setting of the flag. Again the lack of DHCPOFFERS is the primary signal, not this flag. Only after the dual-stack host has received all ROUTER ADVERTISEMENTS and they all have this flag set is it safe for a dual-stack host to assume it can cease sending DHCPDISCOVERS. Further if at any time, a dual-stack host receives a ROUTER ADVERTISEMENT with this flag cleared, it should continue sending DHCPDISCOVERS periodically.
>
> Making the lack of DHCPOFFERS the primary signal and this flag a secondary signal mitigates almost all the risks associated with this flag. So, this flag is not saying turn off IPv4, this flag is saying assume that the lack of any DHCPOFFERS is an intentional act and don't auto-configured an IPv4 Link-Local address or perform any IPv4 service discovery with an IPv4 link-local address. Further, if you see only ROUTER ADVERTISEMENTS with this flag set, you can fairly quickly stop sending DHCPDISCOVERS at all, they are not going to get answered.
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> ===============================================