Re: [v6ops] Please review the No IPv4 draft

"George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com> Tue, 15 April 2014 19:24 UTC

Return-Path: <wesley.george@twcable.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 5DD1A1A0471 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 12:24:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.663
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.663 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 0hWWIqmlZVFu for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 12:24:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cdpipgw02.twcable.com (cdpipgw02.twcable.com [165.237.59.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24CC21A011A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 12:24:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.10
X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,865,1389762000"; d="scan'208";a="262381148"
Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB01.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.10]) by cdpipgw02.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 15 Apr 2014 15:23:54 -0400
Received: from PRVPEXVS15.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.79]) by PRVPEXHUB01.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.10]) with mapi; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 15:24:15 -0400
From: "George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>, Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>, "Dale W. Carder" <dwcarder@wisc.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 15:24:13 -0400
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Please review the No IPv4 draft
Thread-Index: Ac9Y4Ekwz2ZoJDUtQhqIwZlylZxXnQ==
Message-ID: <CF72FB46.18429%wesley.george@twcable.com>
References: <534BF5A5.5010609@viagenie.ca> <20140415142103.GA50776@ricotta.doit.wisc.edu> <534D4D32.7080001@viagenie.ca> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AFE5ACB@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AFE5ACB@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.1.140326
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/jWSewvvETBvIFioVOl448ofW22Y
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <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: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 19:24:22 -0000

On 4/15/14, 11:20 AM, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> wrote:


>Yeah, but we survived the transition away from these older networks
>without significant issues and special messages on IPv4 to tell clients
>"don't try IPX or AppleTalk or ...".
>
>- Bernie

Ok. Youngin’ (and cochair of Sunset4) speaking. My experience with
networking begins after these transitions were largely complete, so I
genuinely don’t have a good sense for what was done to “survive" this
transition, and I’d bet Simon doesn’t either. If that’s really the right
model, please explain what that actually means, since in Sunset4 we’re
supposed to be figuring out what this transition looks like, how to turn
off IPv4, etc. If it’s really been done, I don’t want to reinvent the
wheel, but I need more to go on than the handwaving that has so far
accompanied this assertion. Answer specifically if you are thinking of a
specific network, or generically if that’s more appropriate.

Did they die of natural causes I.e. most clients simply stopped having
them enabled by default? If yes, over what timeframe?
Were some networks forcing those protocols to be disabled via going to
each host and manually configuring? Or was the background traffic so
negligible that it was simply ignored?
What was the order of magnitude of size of the broadcast domain? Number of
hosts that might have to be touched on an average network? How many hosts
were dynamically configured vs static? DHCP was pretty new then, wasn’t it?
Since we’ve brought up reducing junk client-sourced traffic on wireless
networks as one of the goals of being able to tell clients to stop
speaking DHCPv4, or IPv4/arp in general, how many wireless IPX and
Appletalk networks were there? (and yes that last question is mostly
tongue-in-cheek)

Thanks,

Wes


Anything below this line has been added by my company’s mail server, I
have no control over it.
-----------



This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.