IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Please review the No IPv4 draft

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 22 April 2014 13:54 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 063C01A0423 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 06:54:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.172
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.172 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272] autolearn=ham
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 XegohIW06nfI for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 06:54:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3D1F1A03AE for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 06:54:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B04B91B803F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 06:54:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9A6619005C; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 06:54:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 06:54:19 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <m1Wcb5y-0000FMC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:54:18 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <BD6D04D4-AD31-462D-A0C7-AD74DBCF23AD@nominum.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> <20140416155714.GB64039@ricotta.doit.wisc.edu> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1404162310050.10236@uplift.swm.pp.se> <B21C1073-ABBE-44FE-964F-65AD7849CD31@delong.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1404170658440.10236@uplift.swm.pp.se> <4EABCE38-7CBA-4C95-84EE-686A2300F26E@delong.com> <8E450CDC-FFC5-4649-89FE-387836C8E40B@nominum.com> <CAEmG1=oNyotn6tcKyxUuLCW0of-MxVrvUB08jsygjo8kidgt0g@mail.gmail.com> <CF7BDD91.1911D%wesley.george@twcable.com> <m1Wcb5y-0000FMC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/sctY4fuX4ViMi_a5bNwNnATCLsU
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: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 13:54:29 -0000

On Apr 22, 2014, at 9:50 AM, Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com> wrote:
> 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.

The current draft describes some of the problems.   Many of the objections raised here completely ignore what the current draft says.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email