Subject: [sunset4] gap-analysis review

From: Lee Howard <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 13:22:59 -0400

General
How will we be tracking the Problems listed in this document?  Sounds like
tracking as charter milestones

2
Do we know if all of the work in ³ [RFC3789], [RFC3790],[RFC3791],
[RFC3792], [RFC3793], [RFC3794],    [RFC3795] and [RFC3796] (which) contain
surveys of IETF protocols with their    IPv4 dependencies²  has been
completed?  
We could either look for volunteers here to comb through them (if we choose
that, I will volunteer to take names and coordinate efforts to write them
up), or go to the IESG and ask for Area Directorates to review the documents
and make sure gaps are all closed.  Based on conversation in WG meeting,
sounds like Ted will suggest IESG task the Directorates to review.
 
3.1
³Given that IPv4 shall be    off, the message must be delivered through
IPv6.²
What if a site is multihomed? (in IPv6, but IPv4 is only available
singly-homed, or via a tunnel)
 
3.2
Problem 3 says it¹s a problem because ³no monitoring or       logging of
IPv4 will be in place.²  Can we assume that this is only a problem in
enterprise networks‹that effectively no home network has monitoring or
logging of mDNS or LLMNR on the LAN?   Can we further accept, then, that
enterprise administrators are capable of blocking the IPv4 Ethertype?  If
there are gaps in other L2 technologies, such as WiFi, Bluetooth, 802.15.4,
let¹s enumerate those and ask the appropriate SDOs for help.

Does this section imply that ISPs should tell subscriber networks not to run
IPv4 inside the home? That seems presumptuous.

The use of rfc2563 (IPv4 DHCP ³go away² message) may be acceptable in a LAN
environment, where the host boots and tries to discover what address
families are available via DHCP broadcast and DHCPv6 multicast.  The router
may use the absence of IPv4 upstream as a hint to send rfc2563 message, or
may have already received its own message.

6.  Several of these problems could be summarized as ³Need to define
Œinteresting traffic¹ for the purpose of on-demand provisioning IPv4.²   Not
sure how to proceed with this definition.
 
8.  Security considerations
Section 3.2 describes a security consideration: if you turn off IPv4, you
may not be monitoring IPv4 traffic.
Section 6, On-demand provisioning implies that IPv4 monitoring must stay in
place.  
Host firewalls or IPSs should still monitor IPv4 signatures, unless they
stop accepting segments with IPv4.
IPv4 tunnels (e.g. 4rd) may bypass security systems, the same way IPv6
tunnels do now.
 
Lee