IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Please review the No IPv4 draft

Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com> Wed, 16 April 2014 09:40 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.com>
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 287501A0013 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 02:40:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_I_LETTER=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 CAhodfE2p5DN for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 02:40:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [130.37.15.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 118401A00E6 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 02:40:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #76) id m1WaMBx-0000BSC; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 11:31:41 +0200
Message-Id: <m1WaMBx-0000BSC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <534BF5A5.5010609@viagenie.ca> <20140415083615.GB43641@Space.Net> <534D3672.3060702@viagenie.ca> <3446106.k0lm12lQ8b@linne> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1404161034220.10236@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAKD1Yr2D+ZMi-UctuvrMzyqoHqgBy5O26GODT=bRwq0PsvLgLw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1404161053110.10236@uplift.swm.pp.se>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 16 Apr 2014 10:54:39 +0200 (CEST) ." <alpine.DEB.2.02.1404161053110.10236@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 11:31:27 +0200
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/XPkeX8veXrMXlQFDK2i-csB7nos
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, 16 Apr 2014 09:40:05 -0000

In your letter dated Wed, 16 Apr 2014 10:54:39 +0200 (CEST) you wrote:
>If it's an enterprise device then the enterprise probably want to follow 
>what the network says. But as I said before, there are use-cases for both 
>and this is why I feel the flags announced should be hints.
>
>Also again, I support this being put into RA.

Unfortunately, the discussion is now split over v6ops and homenet.

I think an option to shutdown IPv4 belongs in DHCPv4. Not in RA.

Having an RA shutdown a DHCPv4 client just creates all kinds of complexity 
I can do without.

>From a host OS point of view, acting on a DHCPv4 extension would be almost
trivial, whereas putting an option in RA creates all kinds of complexity 
nobody can predict at the moment.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email