IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Please review the No IPv4 draft

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Tue, 15 April 2014 04:53 UTC

Return-Path: <owen@delong.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 564ED1A06D0 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:53:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.263
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.263 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no
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 nPANgPriOGn4 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:53:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B164D1A06A3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:53:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.102] (ip-64-134-38-51.public.wayport.net [64.134.38.51]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id s3F4oBnG031599 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:51:08 -0700
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.3 owen.delong.com s3F4oBnG031599
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1397537470; bh=qupH10jybexjZGYFL7stt1fEo8g=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To; b=FpN5vDV5uArLQZ5tH54EnFPpPpKueoOHWYp7rmTfVLG/aSIFz9SARDqc81iar2Fzk dpcb1VnE4QIQsCmFqN//PEs4dkkNYY3jBsOeShD3WXobhD3pSgfyUvdX9TD/bqHuw7 mMITaXiObQ0VGEkoLJ4GWAzaFettNi+g3/+Tn7Do=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <23F575A3-E00D-410E-9929-7377B7CAA623@nominum.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:51:06 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <82E804C3-725D-415A-87C3-512073774C6F@delong.com>
References: <534BF5A5.5010609@viagenie.ca> <534BFA08.3030404@foobar.org> <49EA8AC9-D5C5-4FE5-9A10-0CD574782F0F@nominum.com> <534C07FC.8000907@foobar.org> <F08AF14D-22C6-4F4C-9388-670EB4CD8453@nominum.com> <534C17B8.8030209@foobar.org> <534C27C9.80701@viagenie.ca> <20140414194824.GY43641@Space.Net> <534C3F7D.3040406@viagenie.ca> <20140414201231.GZ43641@Space.Net> <23F575A3-E00D-410E-9929-7377B7CAA623@nominum.com>
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0rc1 (owen.delong.com [192.159.10.2]); Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:51:09 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/D_AZUL3HaZt1bi3lEHJ316Yl1Ic
Cc: 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 04:53:47 -0000

On Apr 14, 2014, at 8:15 PM, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> wrote:

> On Apr 14, 2014, at 3:12 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
>> There are at least 3 different IPv4 DHCP clients on "Unix", and the
>> author and maintainer of the IPv6 DHCP client that is installed might
>> not know which IPv4 DHCP client you're using.
> 
> This is not something to brag about.   Network configuration works badly on machines that operate this way.   I say this as the author of one of those DHCP clients.   This problem needs to be fixed, not papered over, and using it as an excuse to do the wrong thing in a protocol spec is absurd.

Calling it the wrong thing while advocating an even more wrong thing is equally absurd.

Owen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email