Re: [v6ops] IPv6-Only Preferred DHCPv4 option

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 06 December 2019 14:31 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDD6F120041 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 06:31:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 CinWJngUZRLj for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 06:31:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x102e.google.com (mail-pj1-x102e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30C0812080A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 06:31:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102e.google.com with SMTP id o11so2816263pjp.9 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 06 Dec 2019 06:31:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=85Ebu1Tg/fb8iG/vBwSdd2Xs/BHjux9+FU1BFC3GSC0=; b=qGckrCLrr7QBHYF40OzJ3gTLw5ShuCr+gwdnj/mk2jJ2KnMBbe5D4mlH1vuSWu2y0T jHaj5DtAh2gGL8Ad+Ft0hPw9zBZdGmVIiYDAw3DVsMm1WlbGme6SyxfMgOOre5Ux+8S6 9kQb2kjW7AAemQCwfJTmadjcLx2SSKE8PUP+0m5+H7bcwmq80JjFUAfm1VHjgN6joLeJ OWirXPWhNf9sdjKJZgKfSa4403MFBQBm6i9OOST2qHy3s/smTjGlPwFXnDXniKDZFJBm HV3tI4uvw0iM3uxbtQb9dRdFyWkxa8aP+7GA84fXrKwNr+XWmzVJVHPTtLuoZrAj8RG6 P4UA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=85Ebu1Tg/fb8iG/vBwSdd2Xs/BHjux9+FU1BFC3GSC0=; b=Kzi4VYAFHO4gmyJYdzAI+aSTbvzUm/enk63rKMSRCpzmj0VKVxmZezBQxf7foofLca i5Z+mt+s7KRlo/4+ClHn50x0zlb6hURVyEDrLzuYCLvTre87rRNjoX8gH2YjXncmorRI pGbFSxc9qAVflKEHiQIZ2ImLiujWLXA3nrWArhh15hxNVbo46gsZNlJSjpTRuAN0y87N KYYoHhHMX4dAl11B96yq1tK+5ecQrw/bXIouVR8ARF6m851/DJShUQ+Cw7oxhiD5qwfD RaM8WodUqjhKAE7rqlqOxWkHCS7qujZxaFWYzVTOZrU6VqgAWr3XZiOWaWyFTCI4TllB pMJg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAViOADha1SKEnHYyQo4TtYBv5Umthl1ZzgXG3ozQSzZ1ccOe1lA wEVQbdMluFlEwp626qAcVJqKn2o78V6r4Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxKfJFg7vcfuT1sIkkBSuwhjfrlVFvz1Yw2BK7legYQErr2KMqQKyez2GdbaSB0n3Vh7lHcTw==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b484:: with SMTP id y4mr15437136plr.166.1575642660259; Fri, 06 Dec 2019 06:31:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.20.3.126] (ip-64-134-236-149.public.wayport.net. [64.134.236.149]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e11sm3477097pjj.26.2019.12.06.06.30.59 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 06 Dec 2019 06:30:59 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 06:30:56 -0800
Message-Id: <EF1F2FB2-4FA0-4BCC-82B8-948EBE7915A6@fugue.com>
References: <m1idEJQ-0000KPC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <m1idEJQ-0000KPC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17E180a)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/ONlVEu2We9eDv7jBn38fiUNB284>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv6-Only Preferred DHCPv4 option
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 14:31:04 -0000

I really feel like there is some point-missing going on here. It is trivial to make this feature only activate for clients that support it. If that is done, then there is no reason to assign an address at all. The offer doesn’t even need to include that option. So any discussion of what address to send is irrelevant and unnecessary. 

> On Dec 6, 2019, at 06:10, Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> "number of IPv4 addresses in the pool" comes to mind.
>> 
>> Like, 80% of all hosts are fine with IPv6+NAT64, so why provision a large
>> enough subnet to cover 100% of all expected hosts if 20% will do?
>> 
>> IPv4 seems to be somewhat in short supply these days.
> 
> With a few exceptions, just about any DHCP pool I come across these 
> days is using RFC 1918.
> 
> Are you running out of RFC 1918 addresses in your pool? Or is the setup
> that you give publicly routable IPv4 addresses to all dual stack hosts
> and want to only put hosts that support NAT64 behind NAT?
> 
> In that case, what's the rational for providing dual stack hosts with public
> IPv4 addresses?
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops