Re: [v6ops] Please review the No IPv4 draft

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Wed, 30 April 2014 10:04 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 9A27D1A6F34 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 03:04:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, 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 NON-0G5Uyew6 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 03:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A4551A0764 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 03:04:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id E096CA6; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 12:04:24 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1398852264; bh=bPAVMpUnCbqQObqwEW4J2Mq816DtbZKgren90Ucv0cM=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=FqwHkAJzfXASWQBzkv3EfJIzP42QbXPkr4h7XKdSjhh4prYIOmeLxSnVGi8VrrQZg TzeYNgSqyRaI4ONYpFDBVvE2gQzvDv0H5NRzELVYNnMRjQMK2mR7MJjqHWkN5smuRz UQOi9TM9pEPs8JDW17yJi4XCtRmnsMxMdCqdVi14=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8FC4A5; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 12:04:24 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 12:04:24 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
In-Reply-To: <B5BC5D48-3D5D-40A4-89F6-B0E1AEC860D6@steffann.nl>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1404301203260.29282@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <9B4139A3-77F7-4109-93AD-A822395E5007@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> <B5BC5D48-3D5D-40A4-89F6-B0E1AEC860D6@steffann.nl>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/KRnT8z1zdD7lyICYWq0K2f4Iv0Q
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 10:04:33 -0000

On Wed, 30 Apr 2014, Sander Steffann wrote:

> Ouch, a solution like that would then increase the cost of deploying 
> IPv6 later on. I agree it is effective to prevent (rogue) IPv6 stuff, 
> but it would be a bit too effective for my taste.

Not really. I'd say if you are providing IPv4 service, then only allow 
IPv4 and ARP ethertypes. When you then provide IPv6 service, just allow 
that one as well. Network-wide change that can be done programatically.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se