[v6ops] IPv6-Only Preferred DHCPv4 option

Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> Wed, 04 December 2019 12:09 UTC

Return-Path: <furry13@gmail.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 9666D120802; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 04:09:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 voiarJ_w9TL8; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 04:09:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72e.google.com (mail-qk1-x72e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72e]) (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 8CC4D120104; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 04:09:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72e.google.com with SMTP id g15so6837986qka.8; Wed, 04 Dec 2019 04:09:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/5+mcuNP+ydlmj7HKs1W5EhLg50jHS3zjz5o2m+Sqf8=; b=IE5S0HG6r4uYVm6+FonWbpBAMVZK4I4cfBrSnywlDMJEAnpmeZAcoOn4BjxMSflWyy Qedgh8CARElY+rX378iTitpVY41h97d7f+ASwJrPekyPLNtQIZme7h6lxT4H2Z3rMqvZ bzazXzNlk4pDV/Du8+Hl41aiAaxplinCYhW8GZw8AqAZMTXkD3IRbBh6L2VatsIvpJxx jMrM5JHkqpUaLn45MtDVQMYZFeu3p/wOXlj2ci/kjjq47IEVxfRQDtuOXG/eu/g6vGfD pxeyZDfdKhAmpaE8NTrnZzfdSQ8QTwTw7FyUY01aU5CyuMsy3RZCZhCHP5/fMSP+aB9J ckmA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/5+mcuNP+ydlmj7HKs1W5EhLg50jHS3zjz5o2m+Sqf8=; b=Lkz1rPf3pA6+m1fseEQqTRheZ/t3JSK8vGSQfZbNooM+z5dR+mDQzkiXrWE6Ufkdiw JMVzf+fMTX9L1wGopJp544/8qeNOnpjRh9FN0tjrqGSHBZey6ZCqLhz+eBz8mxkt+X+b R3Tza4eeY13V5wzk6Yxi00xrT0iXbWMyHdedoIsZ2jpH3RSpW6JhG27U9/GmG/ovrIdL eLlKgPb+FxEQylTdmWJNctuUHkEI8GAOB9XXlqDZ76z45BJP4Re00OHon/cZiPWw7bBt cqy0hW26WjPXzKiXdYM9LFM3UyyGOnq3PnDtcjlHn1ycpWpqKnxsqtSsgo2O/4tHajfw J0Ng==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXlRcc8tCTPz3qFACE4M8Yx2MixpK5wQbf/BR6hTK4aCTD08qjk vAwwRsEB4XexzaexVAChK1lymN1XLqzhV0Px16cmdEMJ
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzNyLQnDpAxjXu+/WiEE/iGvBi2s0Qn9STUprjkorZOD64gHPw2GY8gK0eG+wbxvlO6NpeBzzLCJEZH9NsQXM4=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:7686:: with SMTP id r128mr1424260qkc.277.1575461360058; Wed, 04 Dec 2019 04:09:20 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 23:09:08 +1100
Message-ID: <CAFU7BAR1JLUZps=CAqJfeQtUf-xQ88RYvgYrPCP+QP0Ter7YFg@mail.gmail.com>
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Cc: V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>, draft-link-dhc-v6only@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/X_Dq-NOnjfPVt6H1XABDdJ5Z_2w>
Subject: [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: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 12:09:25 -0000

Hello,

One of the biggest issue in deploying IPv6-only LANs is how to do it
incrementally, when some hosts work just fine in NAT64 environment
while some legacy devices still need IPv4. Doubling the number of
network segments (having an IPv6-only and dual-stack segments of each
type) is an operational nightmare. So it would be just awesome if all
devices can co-exist in the same network segment and hosts capable of
operating in IPv6-only environment do not consume IPv4 addresses.
So here is the draft proposing a new DHCPv4 option to help saving IPv4
addresses and deploying IPv4-as-a-service:

Name:           draft-link-dhc-v6only
Revision:       00
Title:          IPv6-Only-Preferred Option for DHCP
Document date:  2019-12-04
Group:          Individual Submission
Pages:          9
URL:
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-link-dhc-v6only-00.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-link-dhc-v6only/
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-link-dhc-v6only-00
Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-link-dhc-v6only


Abstract:
   This document specifies a DHCP option to indicate that a host
   supports an IPv6-only mode and willing to forgo obtaining a IPv4
   address if the network provides IPv6 access.

Any comments/suggestions/reviews are highly appreciated!

Adding v6ops@ to Cc: as the problem is related to operating IPv6-only networks.

Thank you!
-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry