IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Please review the No IPv4 draft

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 30 April 2014 01:13 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 F00301A099F for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] 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 5k4lfBHFwfYW for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:13:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B03351A0909 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:13:54 -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 7AFC41B8055 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:13:53 -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 6329C19005C; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:13:53 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <536033DD.8020800@foobar.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 21:13:50 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <185E714C-A7F3-411B-8CCE-520416EEB858@nominum.com>
References: <9B4139A3-77F7-4109-93AD-A822395E5007@nominum.com> <m24n1l8i1a.wl%Niall.oReilly@ucd.ie> <3BA3E5A3-4385-43CE-B73F-A0686AA31B4E@nominum.com> <m238gxpgrt.wl%Niall.oReilly@ucd.ie> <73221D87-5F50-4689-AA42-553AF757ABF5@nominum.com> <m2mwf59uht.wl%Niall.oReilly@ucd.ie> <7310412C-64E9-4A11-9812-92A969082131@nominum.com> <20140428190804.GK43641@Space.Net> <446A720E-1128-4FFF-BB3B-780EACA9610B@nominum.com> <535EBC20.10900@foobar.org> <20140428213045.GL511@havarti.local> <19B5B5AB-FF86-408B-8E73-D5350853965B@foobar.org> <3563D9EE-CD40-4E75-A1CB-C3FB50EEEBC4@nominum.com> <535F3624.4020801@foobar.org> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1404290726011.29282@uplift.swm.pp.se> <535F3A8C.2050902@foobar.org> <E68028C1-2E6D-4D07-A113-60757457E286@nominum.com> <535F99A9.3030402@foobar.org> <0C03200E-B349-44D4-BE3F-512AD6A7A417@nominum.com> <535FCB2C.3030502@foobar.org> <8DB83B3D-D09C-4977-9B4F-75EA2DD3B71D@nominum.com> <53601BED.4050200@foobar.org> <37DC9152-EEE3-4EEF-81C7-AD5B6D0E9892@nominum.com> <536033DD.8020800@foobar.org>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/9HpN8PgTnZEJf8PZAKQ3XhrVjQ8
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: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 01:13:56 -0000

On Apr 29, 2014, at 7:21 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
> this creates a new requirement to implement mac layer filtering of 0x86dd
> across all ipv4 networks, on all network media, everywhere - in order to
> stop casual jokers from trashing people's ipv4 network connectivity, even
> if the signal is only the interface option (i.e. semantic option 1).  The
> operational cost of this is not feasible.

Yes, it's *much* worse than blocking bogus DHCPv4 servers, which can do exactly the same thing.

I hear what you are saying, Nick.   There's no need for hyperbole.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email