Re: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Franck, I try not to be religious about NAT, and I use NAT44 every day
like most people. Also like most people, I experience occasional
unexplained failures of web-based transactions. Whether they are due
to a NAT garbage-collect or a load-balancer failure, I don't know,
of course. But actually I am not deeply concerned about NAT64, although
any failures that it generates would be very hard to identify. I am
more concerned about IETF participants whose devices are not set up
as dual stack nodes at all. They would be completely blocked. Yes,
I know, such people should not exist, should be deeply ashamed, etc.
But I don't see why we would cut them off to prove a point.

Regards
   Brian

On 25/01/2017 14:05, Franck Martin wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[e-mail]>
>> To: "Franck Martin" <[e-mail]>, "IETF" <[e-mail]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 4:33:22 PM
>> Subject: Re: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago
> 
>> On 25/01/2017 12:11, Franck Martin 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?
>>
>> That would be a good way of damaging IETF productivity for a few hours.
> 
> Do you have evidence of applications not running in a NAT64 environment? I'm interested to know them.
> 
>>
>> And for what? Moving away from the mainstream coexistence mechanism (dual
>> stack),
>> to a mechanism known to be intrinsically defective (NAT). I don't see the point.
>>
> 
> I fail to see how NAT is intrinsically defective, since it is used successfully by everyone...
> 
> Nevertheless, the goal here is to get the Internet designers (IETF) to have operational experience on what needs to be fixed.
> 
> When the IPv4 outage happened a few years back, it gave a serious impetus in getting IPv6 totally mainstream on many platforms.
> 
> IAB encourages IPv6: https://www.iab.org/2016/11/07/iab-statement-on-ipv6/
> 
> However going IPv6-only can only be done in walled gardens. There still will be many environments with IPv4 only. A solution here is to move networks to NAT64, so you only need to support IPv4 at the edges...
> 
> Yes creating an outage for the sake of an outage is pointless, experience on what works and not work needs to be recorded.
> 
> May be the first step instead of doing an outage is to have as default a NAT64 network at IETF meetings and a dual stack network for the people that experience issues.
> 
>  
>