IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Please review the No IPv4 draft

Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com> Tue, 22 April 2014 17:04 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.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 4BDBB1A06A8 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_I_LETTER=-2] 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 EMuEf87xcHkP for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:04:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6D391A06A5 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #76) id m1Wce7X-0000CDC; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:04:35 +0200
Message-Id: <m1Wce7X-0000CDC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.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> <BD6D04D4-AD31-462D-A0C7-AD74DBCF23AD@nominum.com> <m1WcbPl-0000COC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <118D079B-FC99-4606-B289-4201137A5815@nominum.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:17:27 -0400 ." <118D079B-FC99-4606-B289-4201137A5815@nominum.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:04:32 +0200
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/vo34vY7-qlyUHUYtj2EQeAWVAqY
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 17:04:45 -0000

In your letter dated Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:17:27 -0400 you wrote:
>I already addressed this point and the others you made in previous 
>comments.   

I hope I can take from this that the only substantial documented advantage
of DHCPv6/RA over DHCPv4 is that the DHCPv4 approach would require a 
small stub DHCPv4 implementation in future routers that lack IPv4 support.

If this is indeed correct, then I will leave to the sunset4 WG to decide 
how to move forward.

In my expectation, host operating systems will either not implement this RFC
or leave it disabled by default, defeating its purpose.

At least for me, this discussion provides enough arguments why it is a bad
idea to ship with this enabled by default.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email