IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] IPv6-Only Preferred DHCPv4 option

Bjørn Mork <bjorn@mork.no> Thu, 05 December 2019 09:00 UTC

Return-Path: <bjorn@mork.no>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F107120100; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 01:00:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.299 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_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mork.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 OqjROGL2iBDN; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 01:00:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from canardo.mork.no (canardo.mork.no [IPv6:2001:4641::1]) (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 2BC2C1200F1; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 01:00:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from miraculix.mork.no ([IPv6:2a02:2121:2c6:3d3e:1118:ca6b:aba6:4c26]) (authenticated bits=0) by canardo.mork.no (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id xB590jAF012435 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 5 Dec 2019 10:00:45 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mork.no; s=b; t=1575536445; bh=cFeXGAbMlFqsID994buEpnnZydGzqIh4lEqII70O4O8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:Message-ID:From; b=ZhfMf3hd8nsgw9OKTp3z20vj3ofeOPmJSBiY6h6gwR4/jpMGow+dG+anRX31D7JBL fhDYcjGxG4e9uuO/2eqW/6kfTDcZIQgeVyVaC15nEhMwOlJelFB2Fh3YYXIXPr8+Ls QKHkNXpof0qmDw1gTh7zje13A9ZjeOj5q94nuDZo=
Received: from bjorn by miraculix.mork.no with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <bjorn@mork.no>) id 1icn03-0005Gt-Al; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 10:00:39 +0100
From: Bjørn Mork <bjorn@mork.no>
To: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
Cc: Roy Marples <roy@marples.name>, dhcwg@ietf.org, V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>, draft-link-dhc-v6only@ietf.org
Organization: m
References: <CAFU7BAR1JLUZps=CAqJfeQtUf-xQ88RYvgYrPCP+QP0Ter7YFg@mail.gmail.com> <da078a21-b606-f0d9-3833-d66b20410853@marples.name> <CAFU7BASdWZv1RTVa5v4thbKPqCrmG886G+hK2J0UoZ3TbELDnw@mail.gmail.com> <b52fdd35-9663-e7df-7303-748a6b3a57ce@marples.name> <CAFU7BAREX1MX_jRNMMyRskiCTcsXJO_Gmc4aSJ78cdrL7eMh8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 10:00:39 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CAFU7BAREX1MX_jRNMMyRskiCTcsXJO_Gmc4aSJ78cdrL7eMh8Q@mail.gmail.com> (Jen Linkova's message of "Thu, 5 Dec 2019 18:01:16 +1100")
Message-ID: <87o8wnf8p4.fsf@miraculix.mork.no>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.101.4 at canardo
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/1PblPVvgoQ4l8hnWPpRTshF-U4w>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv6-Only Preferred DHCPv4 option
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 09:00:51 -0000

Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> writes:

> Right now the *only* possible scenario when a host might consider IPv4
> optional is that:
> 1) the host supports IPv6
> 2) either all applications on that host work in NAT64 environment or
> the host is doing 464XLAT.
> 3) the network provides NAT64.
> The host knows if conditions #1 and #2 are met and signals it to the
> network, so DHCP server responds 'OK, #3 is met as well'.

There is a fair amount of IoT devices requiring access to one specific
CDN hosted dual-stack service, and only that. These devices will always
work in an IPv6 only environment, even without NAT64, and they know it.

Not that these hosts ever will implement any new DHCP feature, but still..

Hosts considering NAT64 optional for IPv6-only operation will probably
become more and more common as "all" (most) services get dual-stack.  I
believe you are limiting the scope unnecessarily by requiring NAT64
here.



Bjørn

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email