Subject: Re: [sunset4] s'wonderful or not, Last Call: <draft-ietf-sunset4-ipv6-ietf-01.txt> (IETF: End Work on IPv4) to Proposed Standard

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 07:35:01 +0900

> The bit about not adding anything to IPv4 unless we also add it to
> IPv6 is OK

is it retroactive?  ops have been asking for functional parity for a
couple of decades.

randy

---

From: Eric C Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 11:16:16 -0400

On 10/1/2017 12:30 AM, John Levine wrote:
> IPv6 is OK, but I also can't find much merit in the rest of the
> document.

Well said.

I think the implication is that this document should not advance in its 
current form.

We will continue to service the installed base of IPv4 with enhancements 
as long as there is demand for such enhancements. Anyone who thinks 
otherwise is just burying their heads in the sand.  I don't mind if 
people want to bury their heads in the sand, but if they could do it 
without wasting everyone else's time, that would be nice.

On 10/2/2017 4:29 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> That's easy - the existence of available addresses is compelling
> advantage enough:-)

Obviously if that were the case, we wouldn't even be having this 
discussion, because IPv4 would already be gone.

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 05:53:17 -0700

On 9/30/2017 9:30 PM, John Levine wrote:
> For an example how how we might improve v6 wonderfulness, see Geoff
> Huston's recent blog post on how badly v6 fragmentation works with
> large DNS responses like you get with DNSSEC:
>
> https://blog.apnic.net/2017/08/22/dealing-ipv6-fragmentation-dns/

draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels explains why all protocols that support any
level of "self encapsulation" (e.g., X in X) always require
fragmentation and reassembly at some layer.

IPv6 fragmentation might not be the best way to support DNS over UDP*,
but that's because of router vendors who (incorrectly) claim to support
IPv6 while dropping valid IPv6 packets (e.g., fragments).

Joe

* an alternate approach is to fragment either at UDP or DNS; the former
is being developed in tsvwg: draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/>.

Joe