IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Please review the No IPv4 draft

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Wed, 16 April 2014 23:43 UTC

Return-Path: <owen@delong.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 A0F691A0424 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:43:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.263
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.263 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] 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 1FNerVp9d4St for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 303B01A0420 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.100] (ip-64-134-38-51.public.wayport.net [64.134.38.51]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id s3GNeOY1018541 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:40:36 -0700
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.3 owen.delong.com s3GNeOY1018541
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1397691637; bh=BdvYVbYY9srupm+0/Ow1Cxex1Bo=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To; b=nFBjyU16BVp1K6W8qr2WqCLRMCJEYILs8sWgKpcPz4TUbLKbeiCa9+C+212ytKswU NX4OZ813etfoxuJWgIN1gMqiu413tLpGjPTf/gsoc9+KEYhKwtfNkxK3+zL70u5bTP tjo8OUyoqB3n6STeYXVtlKzcKjZJXU2SIf5hNb0Q=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <3DF45562-0FC9-4596-91C0-E95FF218F02F@nominum.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:40:21 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <696FEE01-88E1-482B-9128-05C415B37481@delong.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> <m1WaMBx-0000BSC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <E772899C-8505-4436-8594-380799F91BA0@nominum.com> <CAKD1Yr2KFOi_hW3CCSbcT-uPQSwsUyE06cY3r8=CuunSbnz_xw@mail.gmail.com> <D701ADC0-EA9F-48DD-933F-9E02ACF3EBD4@nominum.com> <534EAB83.1070906@foobar.org> <70739713-281A-41E6-93ED-5EE1BC4B7FAB@nominum.com> <534EC1DB.4010902@foobar.org> <534EE834.5040801@gmail.com> <3DF45562-0FC9-4596-91C0-E95FF218F02F@nominum.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0rc1 (owen.delong.com [192.159.10.2]); Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:40:37 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/mJrIHIS3ltFnXEDTpBur5jwBN5s
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 23:43:14 -0000

On Apr 16, 2014, at 4:12 PM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote:

> On Apr 16, 2014, at 3:29 PM, Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The real debate over the issue of IPv4 configuration over IPv6 occurred jointly between DHC and Softwires. It got quite heated. Jabber logs at http://www.ietf.org/jabber/logs/dhc/2013-11-05.html.
> 
> That was a bit of debate between me and Ole, but to characterize it as "the real debate" kind of misses what consensus is about.   This is something that's been discussed at great length over the past six years, and the working group has at various times had consensus about it.   Ole and my discussion is one brief vignette within that multi-year saga.
> 
> But again, it's orthogonal to what we are talking about here—the draft we were talking about is how to configure IPv4 addresses and service information when you don't have a local wire with IPv4 running on it, not how you turn off IPv4 when you don't want it.

Huh??? The discussion we are talking about has nothing to do with that. It’s about how to turn off IPv4 services on a LAN where it is desired to get an IPv4 DHCP client to STFU (or we’re talking about two different drafts, one of which is IPv4 configuration over an IPv6 tunnel and the other of which is the DHCP STFU).


Owen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email