Re: [v6ops] Please review the No IPv4 draft

[Simon Perreault <[e-mail]>]

Le 2014-04-22 09:00, George, Wes a écrit :
> WG] I think that there’s a need for clarification here. A lot of this
> discussion has focused almost exclusively on the full-on disabling of
> IPv4. Part of what the draft discusses is that there are differing
> things that can be signaled to the local devices from the network based
> on the bit set in the proposed option. There is an option that simply
> signals “there is no IPv4 support on this network” and makes attendant
> recommendations that the device decide on its own what to do for any
> local IPv4 traffic on the LAN, including doing nothing, configuring 169
> addresses, etc. but that it should disable IPv4 on the upstream
> interface facing the network that provided the signal (I.e. Stop
> forwarding IPv4 traffic and stop sending DHCPv4). 
> I’m willing to go with consensus (if exist) that the more aggressive
> option of something like a full-on IPv4 killswitch that affects more
> than one interface and affects the local network is a bridge too far,
> both for security reasons (It’ll be hard to secure to a level that
> exploits aren’t likely) and because it gets into a question about
> autonomy and span of control. But I think it’s worth highlighting that
> there are also less aggressive options discussed in the draft, and I’d
> like to have some sense that those are mostly on the right track, and
> your statement is so broad that I wanted to get clarification on what
> you think of this.

Right.

To be very explicit, one of the "less aggressive" options on the table
is to specify a "there is no IPv4 on this network" signal while saying
nothing about how a host should react to this signal. Each
implementation could use that hint however it sees fit.

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca