Re: Opportunity Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary

[Elwyn Davies <[e-mail]>]

I also think that we must think positive about this.

We do need to try things out.  I think we started our very first 
experiments with Wireless LAN at IETF 46 in Washington (I am just trying 
to find a museum to take the plug-in card Nortel sold(?) me that was 
never any use afterwards (the old 1Mbps not 802,11b 'standard') ).  It 
has taken us more or less 23 meetings to get to the point where 
essentially Wi-Fi 'just worked' measured by traffic on the attendees 
mailing list - it was sometimes a sore trial when 17 ad hoc networks 
stopped you connecting to the outside world, but we have learnt how to 
do it - and the vendors and operators have (I suspect) learnt a good 
deal in parallel.

Also one or two ISPs have actually embraced IPv6.  Mine (a smallish 
outfit in the UK) has done so.  To my shame I haven't exploited their 
capabilities yet - my New Year's resolution is to fix this situation.  I 
could run native IPv6 if I find an ADSL modem/router that handles it but 
in the meantime I can run a tunnel into my firewall box and go native 
IPv6 elsewhere. Ot will be an interesting experiment and I should be 
ready to handle any experiments at IETF. Have a look at 
http://www.aaisp.net/aa/aaisp/ipv6.html

Regards
Elwyn



Jari Arkko wrote:
> I agree with Leslie on this. It is important to approach this in the
> right light. Not an interop event; that would be for the implementors of
> the products. Not a demonstration that IPv4 is still required for most
> things; we know that already. Not a one hour session where thousand
> people try to install something new at the same time without a network;
> there needs to be better model for that.
>
> But I think we should still do something. I viewed Russ' call as an
> opportunity for the IETF community to take a challenge and see what we
> can make happen by IETF-71. As a personal note, I've had IPv6 turned on
> my equipment, home site, and company site for years but during the last
> few months I have tried create a situation where most of own
> communications would be on IPv6. We converted the company mail servers
> and gateways that I use to dual stack; some of my own web systems got
> AAAA records too; I ensured that the tools that I use have the right
> capabilities and defaults to use IPv6; I've contacted the admins of the
> remaining IETF web sites that still are IPv4 only to ask if they can be
> converted to dual stack. A significant part of my communications go over
> IPv6 today, and I have a hope to get this to cover most of my
> work-related communications. And yes, there's pain. I'm typically the
> first one to experience the firewall config bug or routing issue on the
> IPv6 side. But I'm willing...
>
> So, I would suggest that we focus on the positive opportunities that
> Leslie mentioned. Get more things to work. Challenge sponsors to do so
> as well. Solve some of the remaining problems. Educate ourselves both by
> doing and by seeing what others do or where they fail. See what works in
> IETF-71 (but the format of that is less important).
>
> Obviously, this needs planning -- Russ' mail is not the plan but rather
> a call for us to figure out what would make sense. Much work needed...
>
> I'm also somewhat surprised by the reluctance of people to try things
> out. Where's our sense of adventure and eagerness to do new things? We
> are engineers after all, tinkering with network setups should be fun,
> no? Boldly go where no group of thousand has ever been... Or at the very
> least, lets change something for the better.
>
> Jari
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>   

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf