Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-vyncke-v6ops-ipv6-only-thin-clients

"Fred Baker (fred)" <> Sat, 27 June 2015 20:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2CBD1A893F for <>; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 13:00:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -114.511
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.511 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_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id asKI92nunQ9t for <>; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 13:00:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 628A71A8943 for <>; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:59:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2362; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1435435153; x=1436644753; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=NP7byn+svlvL5Kq22AW9eK2MN7wvuACPcJdmWfvsLNQ=; b=MFyyXOt8aoZn3c9YkgqJgGVm/4esBHAQaTUExCPSukZAboX6GOfEU4gL vWhR7mpfvwTDnp2Hs8pVsMDnC6ZE5bk9zW7qAyPRhuWzpMPNT40cj1KcS DV8cDu1cwCVcKMYtmr3BJgnZz9RFHVBhfDvCfIhEEVw3V3EaIm7DJabmy c=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 833
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.13,690,1427760000"; d="asc'?scan'208"; a="5205711"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 27 Jun 2015 19:59:12 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t5RJxC7J001622 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sat, 27 Jun 2015 19:59:12 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 14:59:12 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <>
To: v6ops list <>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] new draft: draft-vyncke-v6ops-ipv6-only-thin-clients
Thread-Index: AQHQsRO8zVJQgUZZwUaDPU5uUlzYjw==
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 19:59:11 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F84B8BFA-0F63-46ED-8277-11B737D7C52D"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-vyncke-v6ops-ipv6-only-thin-clients
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 20:00:32 -0000

> On Jun 27, 2015, at 4:47 AM, Fred Baker (fred) <> wrote:
> A new draft has been posted, at Please take a look at it and comment.

You have seen my comments about the developing agenda for IETF 93. This is a draft that I'm specifically looking for feedback on. If there is interest in the working group, we may have a few minutes to discuss it f2f; in any event, I think it needs discussion on the list, and I'd be happy to see it discussed somewhere else if that works better.

The draft is a quick read, and I suspect covers only the most glaring issues in IPv6-only networks. Folks that are running IPv6-only handsets in mobile networks are dealing with various issues, no doubt, and we have several wireline networks that are experimenting with IPv6-only with an IPv4 overlay. What are the IPv6 issues (not IPv4 issues) that we are seeing with hosts in IPv6-only networks?

Your comments please...