Re: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago

Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> Wed, 25 January 2017 00:53 UTC

Return-Path: <jared@puck.nether.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AA281295DB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 16:53:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p3dmZMvaXKqn for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 16:53:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from puck.nether.net (puck.nether.net [204.42.254.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 723541295D8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 16:53:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.21.11.118] (ip-64-134-158-249.public.wayport.net [64.134.158.249]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by puck.nether.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E104E540ACA; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 19:53:06 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-ED81956B-8B64-47C4-86A8-F53331AA56DC
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (14D27)
In-Reply-To: <844840869.114000858.1485299485194.JavaMail.zimbra@peachymango.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:53:05 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <B7506EA2-5DB2-45F2-ADF4-DFD99159822D@puck.nether.net>
References: <844840869.114000858.1485299485194.JavaMail.zimbra@peachymango.org>
To: Franck Martin <franck@peachymango.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-OhhnDMsu1715tLG6ivoyB_0XAw>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:53:09 -0000

This experiment would be best done in your home or office environment. 

I have had the described issue occur in real life at home, things went on mostly fine. 

Replicating what carriers like T Mobile USA and EE in the U.K. have done or are in the process of doing will not help folks understand the issues of v4 or v6. 

There is a whole host of minor issues that should be fixed in v6 that won't be addressed by this proposed experiment. With things like DNSSEC and such out there your router can't lie when you type router.login to your browser for example. People are still using the same old Linux or VxWorks with bugs and don't do AF_INET6 or a higher layer API. 

Much of the trouble comes from the consumer electronics space and lack of implementing of known best practices. 

Jared Mauch

> On Jan 24, 2017, at 5:11 PM, Franck Martin <franck@peachymango.org> wrote:
> 
> I think it is time to move to the next level of IPv6 deployment.
> 
> Ideally the IETF WiFi network should now only provide the following 2 networks:
> 1)IPv6-only
> 2)IPv6-only with NAT64
> 
> The later should be the default network.
> 
> However you would say, well some stuff will break, some non technical people will use the IETF network and may have a bad experience, etc...
> 
> So to be conservative but at the same time futurist and like it was done a few years back, why not create again an IPv4 outage of a few hours where the above 2 networks would be the only networks available? 
> 
> Depending on results, this outage could be expanded to a full day at the following meeting, until the IPv4 network is totally removed from the WiFi?