[sunset4] discussion on sunset4-noipv4 draft in other WGs

"George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com> Wed, 16 April 2014 17:38 UTC

Return-Path: <wesley.george@twcable.com>
X-Original-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CE411A01C9 for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 10:38:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.564
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.564 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_61=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 8BkFtilrg9TJ for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 10:38:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cdpipgw01.twcable.com (cdpipgw01.twcable.com [165.237.59.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F159F1A0165 for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 10:38:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.10
X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.97,873,1389762000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="271960302"
Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB01.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.10]) by cdpipgw01.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 16 Apr 2014 13:38:01 -0400
Received: from PRVPEXVS15.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.79]) by PRVPEXHUB01.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.10]) with mapi; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 13:38:25 -0400
From: "George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com>
To: "sunset4@ietf.org" <sunset4@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 13:38:24 -0400
Thread-Topic: discussion on sunset4-noipv4 draft in other WGs
Thread-Index: Ac9Zmqr8n7YP3yBVQN6nkMytUkt/pA==
Message-ID: <CF743850.186C5%wesley.george@twcable.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.1.140326
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CF743850186C5wesleygeorgetwcablecom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sunset4/LvG7CrTFUAJ96Cq9R0V_Ism5jaA
Subject: [sunset4] discussion on sunset4-noipv4 draft in other WGs
X-BeenThere: sunset4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: sunset4 working group discussion list <sunset4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sunset4/>
List-Post: <mailto:sunset4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 17:38:41 -0000

Simon Perreault (and to some lesser extent,I ) has been involved in a fairly animated discussion across Homenet and V6Ops about draft-ietf-sunset4-noipv4 after requesting those WG’s feedback on the draft.
Here’s a quote from one of Ted Lemon’s posts that might help to summarize the discussion:
"We've gotten some good feedback that the document isn't clear enough, particularly with respect to how multiple interfaces are handled, and we've gotten some good feedback about how to handle validity of the assertion that IPv4 shouldn't be used, and about how to deal with various attacks that could be launched by shutting down IPv4.
...
there's also been a lot of discussion about whether to use DHCPv4 or IPv6 configuration protocols for signaling,"

Additionally there were questions about whether or not the scope should be limited to shutting down DHCPv4, or still include shutting IPv4 off altogether, and whether there should be guidance on things like lifetimes, back off behavior in clients, etc.

This link should pull up the relevant threads all in one place via the new mail archive search tool.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?qdr=a&start_date=&end_date=&email_list=v6ops%2Chomenet&q=text%3A%28%22the+no+ipv4+draft%22%29&as=1

I’d encourage folks to take a look and provide input on this list, so that the authors have good guidance from the WG on how this WG draft should evolve to address the feedback provided.

Thanks,

Wes

Anything below this line has been added by my company’s mail server, I have no control over it.
-----------

________________________________
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.