IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Usage of services without IPv6 Support

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> Thu, 23 April 2020 13:37 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@iii.ca>
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 1D04F3A074E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 06:37:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=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 wKoYZACDHlal for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 06:37:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp67.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (smtp67.ord1c.emailsrvr.com [108.166.43.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1706D3A0747 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 06:37:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Auth-ID: fluffy@iii.ca
Received: by smtp9.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: fluffy-AT-iii.ca) with ESMTPSA id 3007D2013F; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 09:37:16 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender-Id: fluffy@iii.ca
Received: from [10.1.3.91] (S0106004268479ae3.cg.shawcable.net [50.66.148.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:587 (trex/5.7.12); Thu, 23 Apr 2020 09:37:16 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.14\))
Subject: Re: Usage of services without IPv6 Support
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
In-Reply-To: <DB40315C-D62E-4135-8DB4-7760FFC4DB88@consulintel.es>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 07:37:15 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D6FF32D1-FABE-4648-AA5B-0F5025D61A5F@iii.ca>
References: <ba1450e1-4288-7682-3e15-f36909f6a1fa@gmail.com> <DB40315C-D62E-4135-8DB4-7760FFC4DB88@consulintel.es>
To: IETF Crazy <ietf@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.14)
X-Classification-ID: f28b4346-fb27-4ed3-9d22-6044364fc7a0-1-1
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/9AiWJqIJ4Hlu-oO8xg8Z8SjZemQ>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 13:37:21 -0000

Just small tiny point … I’d like to point that right now I am on a LTE network that only provides a V6 address to my phone and WebEx is working just fine - So, thought I agree there are many ways WebEX could do more, I realize that deploying more NATs may not have been the original design goal of V6, it might be good to actually gets the facts straight.

(and for full disclosure, I work at Cisco)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email