This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/ripe-atlas@ripe.net/
[atlas] beta status page vs. ipv6 only network
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] beta status page vs. ipv6 only network
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] #6262 Disconnectted
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Stephane Bortzmeyer
bortzmeyer at nic.fr
Mon Jan 15 16:57:36 CET 2018
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:02:02AM +0100, Robert Kisteleki <robert at ripe.net> wrote a message of 31 lines which said: > I'd think it's relatively difficult to automatically (i.e. system) > tag probes as "intentionally single stack", as we don't really know > if that's a misconfiguration (e.g. DHCP server is down) or > intentional. Note there is some work at the IETF, in the sunset4 working group, to address this very problem. Document draft-ietf-sunset4-gapanalysis (the gap analysis) describe it as "3.1. Indicating that IPv4 connectivity is unavailable PROBLEM 1: When an IPv4 node boots and requests an IPv4 address (e.g., using DHCP), it typically interprets the absence of a response as a failure condition even when it is not." There is no standard solution today. Document draft-ietf-sunset4-noipv4 proposed "a new DHCPv6 option and a new Router Advertisement option to inform a dual-stack host or router that IPv4 can be turned off" but this document died, I don't know why.
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] beta status page vs. ipv6 only network
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] #6262 Disconnectted
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]