Re: [71attendees] IPv6 Jabber Identity server anyone?

"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <> Tue, 11 March 2008 20:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E47A328C462; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:39:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.219
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.217, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Djl1mwR0uPJS; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:39:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9B9728C50D; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:37:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EAD628C662 for <>; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:37:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BDFWQ1fPdHOJ for <>; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:37:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD2E928C658 for <>; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id m2BKKqD7021092; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:20:52 -0700
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:30:36 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:30:35 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [71attendees] IPv6 Jabber Identity server anyone?
Thread-Index: AciDtWkeMLj0iFKJRRmaVnWKfg1IIwAAF3sx
References: <> <>
From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <>
To: "Marc Blanchet" <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Mar 2008 20:30:36.0495 (UTC) FILETIME=[C35C45F0:01C883B6]
Subject: Re: [71attendees] IPv6 Jabber Identity server anyone?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for IETF Meeting 71 attendees <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0702121016=="

The objective here is to determine the functionality available to a user on an IPv6 only connection.

If the functionality is that I can only reach IPv6 hosts then I might as well use IPv8. The deployment strategy is going to fail. There is no incentive to deploy IPv6 hosts until there is a network of IPv6 clients and vice-versa.

So I would say that we have an important result, the current plan is unworkable. 

I am not giving up my IPv4 address until there is no Internet resource that I cannot reach via IPv6.

The dual stack scenario works for the end user but does nothing to solve the problem of depleting IPv4 space unless the IPv4 is behind a NAT.

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Blanchet []
Sent: Tue 11/03/2008 4:20 PM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Subject: Re: [71attendees] IPv6 Jabber Identity server anyone?
Le 08-03-11 à 15:59, Hallam-Baker, Phillip a écrit :

	Issues discovered (OS/X Lepoard on a MacBook Air):
	1) Firefox does not allow an IPv6 URL to be entered into the address bar, fe80::... was turned into

have you tried http://[fe80::...] ?  i.e. enclosing into brackets? 
RFC2732 for the specific info; RFC3986 for the merged URI 

	2) iChat and Adium were both unable to connect to my gmail identity server so I was unable to connect to any chat room whatsoever.
	Conclusion: Not only does it not work,

well, if a server is only ipv4 (as the gmail identity server you are referring to), then obviously on an ipv6-only network, you won't be connected to it.

	the level of user intervention required is such that I am going to have to retreat to a small desert island (no Internet) during the transition phase or spend 110% of my time fixing the transition problems of all my relatives. Might as well be using IPv8...
	This has to be completely transparent to the end user.

agree. in dual-stack scenarios, this is transparent. this experiment (v6only) pushes the envelop for v6-only deployments.


	The current scheme requires double ended adoption before IPv6 gives me the same level of usability as IPv4. 

	71attendees mailing list

IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley, 2006,

71attendees mailing list