Re: [v6ops] Please review the No IPv4 draft

Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> Tue, 15 April 2014 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
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 74AAA1A0781 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 08:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.173
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.173 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 ATRDzilhAx7n for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 08:52:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 826071A077A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 08:52:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from porto.nomis80.org (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:c000:2520:ef8a:477:622f]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 85FBB41172; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 11:51:57 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <534D559D.9080309@viagenie.ca>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 11:51:57 -0400
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>, "Dale W. Carder" <dwcarder@wisc.edu>
References: <534BF5A5.5010609@viagenie.ca> <20140415142103.GA50776@ricotta.doit.wisc.edu> <534D4D32.7080001@viagenie.ca> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AFE5ACB@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AFE5ACB@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/3Pcrdu--JyGCjS3xddAhQSdFGi4
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <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: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 15:52:03 -0000

Le 2014-04-15 11:20, Bernie Volz (volz) a écrit :
> Yeah, but we survived the transition away from these older networks without significant issues and special messages on IPv4 to tell clients "don't try IPX or AppleTalk or ...".

Of course. And this argument has first been made by Stuart Cheshire.

To me, the operational situation with IPv4 and its billions of deployed
devices is light-years away from AppleTalk/IPX.

People are experiencing real problems with moving to IPv6-only. I don't
think our answer should be "just do it the way it was done with
AppleTalk and IPX".

Simon

> -----Original Message-----
> From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Simon Perreault
> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 11:16 AM
> To: Dale W. Carder
> Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Please review the No IPv4 draft
> 
> Le 2014-04-15 10:21, Dale W. Carder a écrit :
>> I guess I am still confused by your use cases.  In looking at our 
>> dhcpv4 servers, I don't have No-IPX nor No-AppleTalk options sent to 
>> clients, so I am confused why this is needed for IPv4.
> 
> IPv4 has billions of deployed devices. IPX and AppleTalk, not so much.
> 
>> 3.1:  Turn off the dhcpv4 relay feature per router (sub)interface.  No 
>> more load on the dhcpv4 server.
> 
> Not possible if the L2 link is shared with devices to which you do want to provide IPv4 service.
> 
>> 3.2:  At the edge of your network, filter packets containing 
>> ethertypes you do not support.
> 
> Not possible if the L2 link is shared with devices to which you do want to provide IPv4 service.
> 
>> 3.3:  Mobile device vendors have an incentive in fixing their code so 
>> they do not chew up their battery more than their competitors.
> 
> Yet the problem has not been fixed.
> 
>> 3.4:  At the edge of your network, filter packets containing 
>> ethertypes you do not support.
> 
> Not possible if the L2 link is shared with devices to which you do want to provide IPv4 service.
> 
> Plus, that only works for ISPs. We need a way to propagate this inside the home.
> 
> Simon
> --
> DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
> NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
> STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 


-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca