Re: [v6ops] Please review the No IPv4 draft

[Philip Homburg <[e-mail]>]

In your letter dated Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:00:32 -0400 you wrote:
>    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 really curious about the resistance of putting the no-ipv4 option in
DHCPv4. As far as I can tell that can be done safely, with almost no 
drawbacks.

Instead, an endless amount of effort seems to be invested in defending the
current choice for DHCPv6 and RA.

Maybe there is document the describes why putting the no-ipv4 option in
DHCPv4 is such a horrible idea. It is just that I can't find it.

Does anyone have a link to that document? (Assuming it exists)