IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] IPv6-Only Preferred DHCPv4 option

Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com> Thu, 05 December 2019 08:42 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.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 DDBD01200F5 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 00:42:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=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 b1RO9uq7vdUn for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 00:42:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BDA31200F1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 00:42:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) (Smail #157) id m1icmif-0000JrC; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 09:42:41 +0100
Message-Id: <m1icmif-0000JrC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: v6ops@ietf.org
From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <CAFU7BAR1JLUZps=CAqJfeQtUf-xQ88RYvgYrPCP+QP0Ter7YFg@mail.gmail.com> <E03BBE6C-3BED-4D49-8F79-0A1B313EFD9D@apple.com> <28594.1575483729@localhost> <7ac18a46-31d9-74cc-117a-0fd908413aac@gmail.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 5 Dec 2019 08:53:11 +1300 ." <7ac18a46-31d9-74cc-117a-0fd908413aac@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 09:42:41 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/UC8Sw1a24sct6NitRfoWhQwCmHQ>
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: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 08:42:46 -0000

In your letter dated Thu, 5 Dec 2019 08:53:11 +1300 you wrote:
>As an ex-author of an ex-draft that suggested using IPv6 to tell hosts to avoi
>d IPv4, I'm curious to know whether a draft that suggests using IPv4 to tell h
>osts to prefer IPv6 will also be accused of being an operational nightmare.

I think this draft has different issues.

The good thing about this draft is that it doesn't affect legacy networks or
legacy hosts. It also doesn't affect any host that doesn't implement this
draft. 

The good thing about this mechanism is that it is the DHCP server that decides
what to do. Given that the DHCP servers hand out IPv4 addresses, we already
need to trust the DHCP server. So this draft clearly put functionality
where it belongs.

I'm not sure that it makes sense for an operator to implement this draft.

Though I have to admit, this draft could finally end the discusion on
whether the default SSID on a meeting network should be NAT64 or dual stack.
With this option it would be upto the host to pick the right way of doing
IPv4.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email