IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] IPv6-Only Preferred DHCPv4 option

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Wed, 04 December 2019 20:43 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
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 A0188120895 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 12:43:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 Lfh0DXNAGIqY for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 12:43:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9212C12004C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 12:43:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Envelope-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Received: from crumpet.foobar.org (089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id xB4Kh4Yq031041 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 4 Dec 2019 20:43:04 GMT (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host 089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged) claimed to be crumpet.foobar.org
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <CAFU7BAR1JLUZps=CAqJfeQtUf-xQ88RYvgYrPCP+QP0Ter7YFg@mail.gmail.com> <E03BBE6C-3BED-4D49-8F79-0A1B313EFD9D@apple.com> <28594.1575483729@localhost> <7ac18a46-31d9-74cc-117a-0fd908413aac@gmail.com>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <9bd73ee1-46f7-5084-06a6-59c7b391f9cb@foobar.org>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 20:43:03 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7ac18a46-31d9-74cc-117a-0fd908413aac@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/qc0dfNFGCRylLbdv0YdzaPQi9TY>
Subject: Re: [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 20:43:08 -0000

Brian E Carpenter wrote on 04/12/2019 19:53:
> As an ex-author of an ex-draft that suggested using IPv6 to tell
> hosts to avoid IPv4, I'm curious to know whether a draft that
> suggests using IPv4 to tell hosts to prefer IPv6 will also be accused
> of being an operational nightmare.

I haven't read the draft yet - and won't get to it for a couple of days 
- but am also curious about why this approach is better than the other 
way around :-)

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email