IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Please review the No IPv4 draft

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Tue, 15 April 2014 08:27 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 44B381A031D for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 01:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.123
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.123 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 QSzYtJSsJkLt for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 01:27:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E98151A02FD for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 01:27:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 66D8BA3; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 10:27:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F0F6A2; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 10:27:41 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 10:27:41 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Niall O'Reilly <niall.oreilly@ucd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <m2k3argftt.wl%Niall.oReilly@ucd.ie>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1404151026060.10236@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <534BF5A5.5010609@viagenie.ca> <CAKD1Yr0j5+r6K8APoFageJz2RESKj5vkk10Ybom0p3Vec_G0YQ@mail.gmail.com> <m2k3argftt.wl%Niall.oReilly@ucd.ie>
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/KeBlKubuif3d_pIYrwZVh6oYZFk
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: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 08:27:49 -0000

On Tue, 15 Apr 2014, Niall O'Reilly wrote:

>  Is the noise/signal (stet!) ratio in client-generated traffic already
>  so low that a few DHCPDISCOVERs per client would be noticeable?

If you have thousands of devices in the same domain, so yes.

Also, you have to remember that some devices will try to ARP for 
"everything" when IPv4 is still turned on (using its IPv4 LL address). 
Having IPv4 be completely turned off on a LAN actually makes quite a lot 
of sense.

So yes, there is a use-case.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email