Re: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago

Franck Martin <franck@peachymango.org> Tue, 24 January 2017 23:35 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 4D8C012958A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:35:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 e1c9ZpMVHmGa for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:34:59 -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 161EE129587 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:34:59 -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 553A95202AA; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:34:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmcc-5-mta-1.zmailcloud.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A5C2C185F; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 17:34:58 -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 2BoYnPXLkCy2; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 17:34:57 -0600 (CST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmcc-5-mta-1.zmailcloud.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4623DC18F7; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 17:34:57 -0600 (CST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.9.2 zmcc-5-mta-1.zmailcloud.com 4623DC18F7
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=peachymango.org; s=61F775A4-4A7F-11E4-A6BB-61E3068E35F6; t=1485300897; bh=Qj5oJpNBdTYdmqr/lqJIgjZmk0p6Sd7GYGocHosk4Wo=; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:Subject:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=bBTgB0Mc1uP97hCgq5OHhOjqAgswuKuVATKKbxCSGr7ESHsJC6GI9K7MVheLgBPCz aBJpT3q3LuFRWhMn6G7siDHTDv1V3bbx+mzcUKW56+lR34QnTwqMO4J528nLG+5kbf idwzPtNy4XA0owFM2kKgL/b5Db9qIagxgdHM8RgA=
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 tazggOSKaK8f; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 17:34:57 -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 2F216C185F; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 17:34:57 -0600 (CST)
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 17:34:57 -0600 (CST)
From: Franck Martin <franck@peachymango.org>
To: Matthew Pounsett <matt@conundrum.com>
Message-ID: <286063743.114032769.1485300897019.JavaMail.zimbra@peachymango.org>
In-Reply-To: <WM!96c7112709147f3ce99c7eb85aad041a553342c0bd269f50eb4fdcff72852d7f0cb66c68c6a4dabe1f93681bbfadff75!@mailstronghold-1.zmailcloud.com>
References: <844840869.114000858.1485299485194.JavaMail.zimbra@peachymango.org> <CAAiTEH_+ya3gdmC9Lhzgvrrk_--20MTvws0-oDaJ4EjJ7tEvng@mail.gmail.com> <WM!96c7112709147f3ce99c7eb85aad041a553342c0bd269f50eb4fdcff72852d7f0cb66c68c6a4dabe1f93681bbfadff75!@mailstronghold-1.zmailcloud.com>
Subject: Re: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_114032768_963316175.1485300897018"
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: hIzvS0jK44BqMJsJkp1R9/WxzQmWpA==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NaTAEtp3f7k9WXhZLJODVnHEHt4>
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 23:35:00 -0000

> From: "Matthew Pounsett" <matt@conundrum.com>
> To: "Franck Martin" <franck@peachymango.org>
> Cc: "IETF" <ietf@ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 3:23:34 PM
> Subject: Re: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago

> 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.

NAT64 allows you to reach the entire IPv4 network, so you should be able to continue to do your job. NAT64 is already deployed on many mobiles in the US. 

Why moving from dual stack IPv4/IPv6 to IPv6 with NAT64? 
It ensures that all the OS and client applications can work in an IPv6 only environment while still be able to reach legacy systems (aka IPv4).