Re: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago

Randy Bush <> Thu, 26 January 2017 17:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C5051297E8 for <>; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 09:02:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.1
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ecOGgAt8fK69 for <>; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 09:02:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5E11129891 for <>; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 09:02:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <>) id 1cWnRg-0001D4-OQ; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 17:02:48 +0000
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 09:02:48 -0800
Message-ID: <>
From: Randy Bush <>
To: Lee Howard <>
Subject: Re: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <158901d276b3$387d6050$a97820f0$> <> <WM!572ad9a6ae19416c99bd6357d98a5df59a81b46a887701f7fe5b0c3faf7d157d9ed99107720fab7bcb2711df4ea4ce8c!> <> <> <> <>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/24.5 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF Rinse Repeat <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 17:02:52 -0000

> Question for you NOC folks: when I report a problem, how much information
> do you need?
> For instance, I can say, ³Jabber failed.²
> Or I can say, ³Jabber failed, here¹s my account.²
> Or I can say, ³Here¹s a packet capture of trying to log into Jabber.²
> But I don¹t want to provide more data than is useful.

maximize data to allow to reproduce, but minimize PII.  and if it is a
well-known problem, e.g. skype, just X on platform Y does not work over
ssid Z on date D.

> Also, I don¹t know of any reporting on tickets like that.

i think it would be nice if the ipv6 folk put in a little work here.
maybe a wiki or whetever.  please remember the noc folk on whom you are
leaning are also unpaid volunteers.  though we can put up a service
(wiki or whatever) for you to use.

> That kind of reporting would help us understand what still breaks on
> IPv6-only or NAT64, and therefore how much pain it would be to make
> one of those configurations be the default SSID.

when a significant number of folk have actually tested, reported, and
problems have been fixed sufficiently that the masses can get their MTV,
let's talk mucking with the default network.

> Would you folks give us some guidance on how to report issues, and
> provide some reports, so we can have metrics telling us when we can
> reasonably make changes?

we have a ticket system and there is a way for you to generate tickets.
but, imiho, tickets are not a great way to document the space.  when you
have a particular issue and are working on getting it fixed, tickets are
great.  but they's an unintelligible mess for tryingt to make a matrix
of whether X works on network flavor Y with platform Z.

> I understand the primary requirement for the IETF network is to let
> people get their work done. So I¹m trying to figure out how to list
> stuff that wouldn't work, so we can clear the way, so we don't
> interfere with work.

solid plan