IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Please review the No IPv4 draft

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 17 April 2014 14:48 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0278B1A01EA for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 07:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.172
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.172 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272] autolearn=ham
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 XpNs_tTBHMn7 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 07:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE3DE1A00D1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 07:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6954A1B807A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 07:48:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F29319005C; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 07:48:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.146.119] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 07:48:26 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EABCE38-7CBA-4C95-84EE-686A2300F26E@delong.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:48:24 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <8E450CDC-FFC5-4649-89FE-387836C8E40B@nominum.com>
References: <534BF5A5.5010609@viagenie.ca> <20140415083615.GB43641@Space.Net> <534D3672.3060702@viagenie.ca> <3446106.k0lm12lQ8b@linne> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1404161034220.10236@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAKD1Yr2D+ZMi-UctuvrMzyqoHqgBy5O26GODT=bRwq0PsvLgLw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1404161053110.10236@uplift.swm.pp.se> <20140416155714.GB64039@ricotta.doit.wisc.edu> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1404162310050.10236@uplift.swm.pp.se> <B21C1073-ABBE-44FE-964F-65AD7849CD31@delong.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1404170658440.10236@uplift.swm.pp.se> <4EABCE38-7CBA-4C95-84EE-686A2300F26E@delong.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/1nuvZ27Qg-yytdFbYN8hSbih18k
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Please review the No IPv4 draft
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 17 Apr 2014 14:48:34 -0000

On Apr 17, 2014, at 6:56 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
> Providing a mechanism for an IPv6 LAN to shut down the IPv4 mobile network on a device which is unlikely to be enterprise controlled is not a solution in the real world, but only an attack vector.

We are in full agreement on this point.   It has to be up to the device what it does with whatever configuration information the network supplies, and I would not expect a device to take advice from one network about how to operate on another.   You could imagine exceptions to this, but I think all of them would be equally well addressed by individually updating each device, so there's no reason to have a protocol for doing it.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email