Re: [v6ops] Please review the No IPv4 draft

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:

> What concerns me is that a lot of objections have been raised that are
> simply opinions, and that are addressed in the current document.
>

I think the problem is that while they are, as you say, addressed in the
current document, there are a number of people on this thread who find the
arguments incomplete and insatisfactory. In other words, a lot of
objections are opinions, but some of the arguments in the current document
are simply opinions, too.

Example: one thing that argues in favour of a DHCPv4 option is that on
current IPv4-only networks, it can be very easy to send out a rogue RA or
install a rogue DHCPv6 server, because IPv6 security features like RA guard
or DHCPv6 filtering are likely not in place. The impact of such an attack
on current hosts is severe, because it allows attackers to blackhole
packets, but at least hosts that implement happy eyeballs can defend
against that sort of attack. This option makes it much worse: if a rogue RA
sender or rogue DHCPv6 server sends out a "kill IPv4" option, then the
hosts are dead in the water.

There is no mention of this in the document.