Subject: [sunset4] New draft: draft-yourtchenko-ipv6-disable-ipv4-proxyarp-00

From: Andrew Yourtchenko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 14:30:11 +0400

Hi all,

we've posted a new draft:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yourtchenko-ipv6-disable-ipv4-proxyarp-00

This could be an intermediate step before draft-perreault-sunset4-noipv4 is
widely implemented, which is simple enough to implement and does not
require coordination between the multiple parties on the network.

would be interesting to hear your feedback.

--a

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 13:24:48 +0200

Le 2013-05-24 12:30, Andrew Yourtchenko a écrit :
> This could be an intermediate step before draft-perreault-sunset4-noipv4
> is widely implemented, which is simple enough to implement and does not

Interesting...

Do you know what real-world OSes implement the "ARP for everything" 
behaviour by default?

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: Tillmann Karras <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 13:56:39 +0200

> Do you know what real-world OSes implement the "ARP for everything"

RFC 3927 Introduction: "Microsoft Windows 98 (and later) and Mac OS 8.5 
(and later) already support this capability."

According to [0], it is enabled by default at least on Windows 98 
through Server 2003 and I have seen these addresses on our network 
(apparently, not everyone considers them to be non-routable...)

Regards,
Tillmann

[0] http://support.microsoft.com/kb/220874

PS: Sorry Simon, I forgot to use reply-to-all.

---

From: Andrew Yourtchenko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 01:27:49 +0400

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Tillmann Karras <[email-masked]>wrote:

> According to [0], it is enabled by default at least on Windows 98 through
> Server 2003 and I have seen these addresses on our network (apparently, not
> everyone considers them to be non-routable...)
>
>

Originally I had noticed this behaviour on the iPhone/iPad on the networks
I dealt with. I can also confirm MacOS X Lion for sure, but can not say
much about Win* - but given the original RFC authorship, highly likely.

Would be very interesting to know about Android/Linux behavior - I did not
do much tests with it; though I had a feeling that Linux did not do "ARP
for everything" - take the latter with about 30% worthiness, I did not
spend any time to doublecheck before typing this, it can be
incorrect/outdated.

--a

> Regards,
> Tillmann
>
>
> [0] http://support.microsoft.com/**kb/220874<http://support.microsoft.com/kb/220874>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> sunset4 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/sunset4<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4>
>

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 10:51:58 +0200

Le 2013-05-24 23:27, Andrew Yourtchenko a écrit :
> Would be very interesting to know about Android/Linux behavior - I did
> not do much tests with it; though I had a feeling that Linux did not do
> "ARP for everything" - take the latter with about 30% worthiness, I did
> not spend any time to doublecheck before typing this, it can be
> incorrect/outdated.

It's a per-distro thing. The distro I use most often (Fedora) does not 
use 169.254/16 addresses by default. I don't know about Android.

This problem will be added to the gap analysis draft.

Simon