Re: [v6ops] Please review the No IPv4 draft

[Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]>]

On 15/04/2014 16:46, Simon Perreault wrote:
> This was a mistake on my part. We're trying to do much more. We're
> trying to create an IPv4 kill switch.

then you need to rewrite sections 1 and 3 from scratch before any other
comments from v6ops would be of any relevance.  As it stands, you have
provided justification for a dhcpv4 client kill switch, but no more.
Killing ipv4 on an interface - particularly given the semantics defined in
e.g. 5.3.3.h - is a substantial undertaking which will require substantial
justification.  Killing ipv4 system-wide, as suggested at the end of
section 5.3, is something which will be extraordinarily difficult to envisage.

> It does not. Did you read our draft? We specify how the No-IPv4 option
> is to be processed in multiple interfaces settings.

I did read the draft and it does talk about killing ipv4 system-wide, and
across all interfaces:

>       The intent is to remove all traces of IPv4 activity.  Once the No-
>       IPv4 option with value 3 is activated, the network stack should
>       behave as if IPv4 functionality had never been present.  For
>       example, a modular kernel implementation could accomplish the
>       above by unloading the IPv4 kernel module at run time.

No way, Jose.

Simon, I think you need to go back to the drawing board on this draft.  As
I said before, stopping v4 DHCPREQUEST packets is a good idea and it would
be feasible to design a mechanism to implement it.  Beyond that, you're on
shaky ground.

Nick