Re: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago

Franck Martin <franck@peachymango.org> Wed, 25 January 2017 01:05 UTC

Return-Path: <franck@peachymango.org>
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 4493C1295E8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 17:05:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=peachymango.org
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 q13ZA5WCTisy for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 17:05:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zmcc-5-mx.zmailcloud.com (zmcc-5-mx.zmailcloud.com [192.198.93.228]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 671041295E7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 17:05:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zmcc-5-mta-1.zmailcloud.com (127.37.197.104.bc.googleusercontent.com [104.197.37.127]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by zmcc-5-mx.zmailcloud.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99A36520257; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:05:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmcc-5-mta-1.zmailcloud.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B8F0C1989; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 19:05:38 -0600 (CST)
Received: from zmcc-5-mta-1.zmailcloud.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmcc-5-mta-1.zmailcloud.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id vNMdls5rpzkZ; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 19:05:37 -0600 (CST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmcc-5-mta-1.zmailcloud.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94166C18D1; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 19:05:37 -0600 (CST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.9.2 zmcc-5-mta-1.zmailcloud.com 94166C18D1
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=peachymango.org; s=61F775A4-4A7F-11E4-A6BB-61E3068E35F6; t=1485306337; bh=pVEGiazu1QfAC7B8AVWhKgycAhqMv3i8l1Pj/g9uPBY=; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:Subject:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=XF2DyFGzHCRwJpQlfopK8sHAWa/PLCSwFTqF7nHcBBHyzmuw0C+8SwtB0DKxEzNGA jBmlmN+RSzBxxVFJ7hWnhZrlkIprGhJ3bqcblC0hhH2cTp9wm2Z8mNhUNuxPWaJbgx N+wFR/z9dsSkV076b8NOYkQB+cQXOHXfTnp5G4gg=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zmcc-5-mta-1.zmailcloud.com
Received: from zmcc-5-mta-1.zmailcloud.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmcc-5-mta-1.zmailcloud.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id fqgqFYaAq8-c; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 19:05:37 -0600 (CST)
Received: from zmcc-5-mailbox-1.zmailcloud.com (zmcc-5-mailbox-1.zmailcloud.com [10.240.0.12]) by zmcc-5-mta-1.zmailcloud.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72FCCC18EB; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 19:05:37 -0600 (CST)
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 19:05:37 -0600 (CST)
From: Franck Martin <franck@peachymango.org>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <212835829.114144965.1485306337275.JavaMail.zimbra@peachymango.org>
In-Reply-To: <WM!9d8566ee4a667cbd16edab2df707ef7a0c8c696ee92bca1ab194c80d7f9f38afca46538cbe422dcfd43306b1345f3435!@mailstronghold-1.zmailcloud.com>
References: <844840869.114000858.1485299485194.JavaMail.zimbra@peachymango.org> <8112f1a6-f63a-e771-f354-206fbb9d684f@gmail.com> <WM!9d8566ee4a667cbd16edab2df707ef7a0c8c696ee92bca1ab194c80d7f9f38afca46538cbe422dcfd43306b1345f3435!@mailstronghold-1.zmailcloud.com>
Subject: Re: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.6.0_GA_1194 (ZimbraWebClient - FF50 (Mac)/8.6.0_GA_1194)
Thread-Topic: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago
Thread-Index: ADSnOty5tMYSGOTSk5AaNkkjNmRDEQ==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/L6S5fs_tfT8NZVGl8jL7eps3hFQ>
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 01:05:41 -0000

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
> To: "Franck Martin" <franck@peachymango.org>rg>, "IETF" <ietf@ietf.org>
> 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.