Re: [v6ops] Please review the No IPv4 draft

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Tue, 15 April 2014 15:14 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 745E21A0484 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 08:14:21 -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 61TmXFdLPgy4 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 08:14:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CDAC1A0476 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 08:14:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:1838:1003::1826:c02d:dc29:1365] (unknown.ipv6.scnet.net [IPv6:2001:1838:1003:0:1826:c02d:dc29:1365] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id s3FF9Sg0029791 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 15 Apr 2014 08:09:30 -0700
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.3 owen.delong.com s3FF9Sg0029791
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1397574571; bh=I5/Z6hgueP+Jm10BNlZF2YKoRoA=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To; b=ZbiYR6u+6SvB22Q3yxcOgoGmOjo4kfjVSzp3BbYAFf+oEEaoIKbLn7EtkdG0obPZA nvosczsfOjj52RaHbvZRkQBwjbXfrM7rk+J3IOhMnvHSQFh+62Fxbu8ixKo6PMX4yG HUvhbdlK4cSlcbnn/BHjdj4c8BHrQ8627K7MLfQQ=
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: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1404151048250.10236@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 08:09:27 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4E64CF95-F984-48F2-AEFA-A3E9FF9D38A3@delong.com>
References: <534BF5A5.5010609@viagenie.ca> <CAKD1Yr0j5+r6K8APoFageJz2RESKj5vkk10Ybom0p3Vec_G0YQ@mail.gmail.com> <m2k3argftt.wl%Niall.oReilly@ucd.ie> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1404151026060.10236@uplift.swm.pp.se> <20140415083615.GB43641@Space.Net> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1404151048250.10236@uplift.swm.pp.se>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0rc1 (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]); Tue, 15 Apr 2014 08:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/vKnqw1ce7HzFj4WX3GRSHe8cYp4
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, 15 Apr 2014 15:14:21 -0000

I would support an RA flag that says “If you’re reading this message, don’t do IPv4 on this network”.

That’s not even close to what is proposed here.

What is proposed here is a variety of IPv6 methods for telling a client to turn off it’s IPv4 dynamic configuration requests and there’s no reason to put that into IPv6 at all.

Owen

On Apr 15, 2014, at 1:53 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Apr 2014, Gert Doering wrote:
> 
>> I agree to this.  Interestingly, this is something else than "just shutdown the dhcpv4 client if this option is detected" - it is "shutdown IPv4", which many OSes can't do today at all (and yes, that needs fixing).
> 
> You're right. I just realised I implicitly thought that "shutdown DHCPv4" and "shutdown IPv4" is the same thing, but it isn't.
> 
> So the flag should really be "of IPv4 and IPv6, use only IPv6" and I actually think this is ok to put in IPv6.
> 
> I would prefer to see this information in RAs after thinking a bit more of this.. And I think it should be hints in the style of M and O flags, meaning the client can still try DHCPv4 for a short while if it really wants to, but it should listen to the hint if it doesn't see significant IPv4 traffic.
> 
> Would it make sense to have a "deactivate IPv6 stack for the lifetime of this RA"-message as well?
> 
> -- 
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops