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

"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com> Tue, 11 March 2008 20:39 UTC

Return-Path: <71attendees-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-71attendees-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-71attendees-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E47A328C462; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:39:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.219
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Djl1mwR0uPJS; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:39:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9B9728C50D; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:37:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: 71attendees@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 71attendees@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EAD628C662 for <71attendees@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:37:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BDFWQ1fPdHOJ for <71attendees@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:37:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from colibri.verisign.com (colibri.verisign.com [65.205.251.74]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD2E928C658 for <71attendees@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MOU1WNEXCN03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (mailer6.verisign.com [65.205.251.33]) by colibri.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id m2BKKqD7021092; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:20:52 -0700
Received: from MOU1WNEXMB09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.25.15.197]) by MOU1WNEXCN03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com 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: <2788466ED3E31C418E9ACC5C3166155708508F@mou1wnexmb09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [71attendees] IPv6 Jabber Identity server anyone?
Thread-Index: AciDtWkeMLj0iFKJRRmaVnWKfg1IIwAAF3sx
References: <2788466ED3E31C418E9ACC5C3166155708508D@mou1wnexmb09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <430F5C13-8F68-495B-99EE-99026C0E8D59@viagenie.ca>
From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>
To: "Marc Blanchet" <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Mar 2008 20:30:36.0495 (UTC) FILETIME=[C35C45F0:01C883B6]
Cc: 71attendees@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [71attendees] IPv6 Jabber Identity server anyone?
X-BeenThere: 71attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for IETF Meeting 71 attendees <71attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/71attendees>, <mailto:71attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:71attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:71attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/71attendees>, <mailto:71attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0702121016=="
Sender: 71attendees-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: 71attendees-bounces@ietf.org

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 [mailto:marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca]
Sent: Tue 11/03/2008 4:20 PM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: 71attendees@ietf.org
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 http://www.fe80.com/...

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.

Marc.


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

	_______________________________________________
	71attendees mailing list
	71attendees@ietf.org
	https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/71attendees
	


-----
IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley, 2006, http://www.ipv6book.ca



_______________________________________________
71attendees mailing list
71attendees@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/71attendees