Re: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago

Matthew Pounsett <matt@conundrum.com> Tue, 24 January 2017 23:23 UTC

Return-Path: <matt@conundrum.com>
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 676A612955B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:23:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=conundrum-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 0zna0Q4eJv2E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:23:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua0-x235.google.com (mail-ua0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0091B12955A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:23:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua0-x235.google.com with SMTP id 96so146804560uaq.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:23:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=conundrum-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=qZX5kMilvvvOX7X9IiqvkfX97t+Fy16WMt68JKL32S0=; b=FVIC7E3+T1vTOyH57uiHnkvO3sqH3EnWz29DGrEbEC+7IsBrHZq1s+/uZVRKGarwK2 V2XnXzeLdsifzrQAi6OJLQt6NBiPuXV9w6AkKEsPcyvTDGVovz4yenjI5AUEcR7vyIZX KzAco9nP1bJOiAXetS2BqsXbMOOnD94HC1ASO/KTw69D2wkABJIm3LflN1+56rtMQmE+ q5Ks8QgNgKJOYq7HA2+h5WKoYvMdjHs3lPhHGtXgR/ITChJO8hcDoKzOLV/6l8Jd7Xio pGeyTNY7+B+cnq2X8NBYlev+DC/jUhZC51x7jEdVNheRhS70RCTvq265D4w+tIMyP4eV CcPg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=qZX5kMilvvvOX7X9IiqvkfX97t+Fy16WMt68JKL32S0=; b=XXvpsV/+VnOwOf81ZNe319T61fj9pPySvdbDq1kq20uR8A/iCFckU25DR6/TtHv06s bNEe2PvoevHGkW9BuUjKfm/BJysa8qGdQ3omuHTt7W47fv9jwhyl+ZHE2M/i4DyjS1Jr sM3RBfHR44SEkJ527iNHIXjBX03KK9Q0WmOPXSsxQNyHoP6VNeEAVYsZPpiuHxX2UD2C bOIvnRT4strK613XSdwHXfLlNYTt6q9gxFGrNdBwKGukJK01Q27JDIrUVWB/SEZWP9JQ 6Bgtfs5lJDINBeUDveKOuOj7sz4PA+EjvsNwHVX3BaUFS+6SF490SsTDWgM4cVA8FjcS dOUw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJB3De+2Y1RlWJW7Ea+siYl9KpitV8QdFL7XNEz41GUWrlciRXT5zvF3r8WLaJ3KXJ/H2zaBu2GZwMYXQ==
X-Received: by 10.176.90.208 with SMTP id x16mr19944353uae.158.1485300214666; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:23:34 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.145.76 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:23:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <844840869.114000858.1485299485194.JavaMail.zimbra@peachymango.org>
References: <844840869.114000858.1485299485194.JavaMail.zimbra@peachymango.org>
From: Matthew Pounsett <matt@conundrum.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:23:34 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAiTEH_+ya3gdmC9Lhzgvrrk_--20MTvws0-oDaJ4EjJ7tEvng@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago
To: Franck Martin <franck@peachymango.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403045f8b38ae2d020546df6705
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/1M_m6XhARBMgvjDVV1GngBvD1N4>
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: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 23:23:37 -0000

On 24 January 2017 at 15:11, Franck Martin <franck@peachymango.org> wrote:

>
> 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?
>
> If you wish to test that your networks are reachable from a v6-only
environment, there is already a v6-only network you can use to test that.
Many of us require access to the entire Internet to do our jobs, however.