RE: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago

Michel Py <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> Wed, 25 January 2017 03:49 UTC

Return-Path: <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
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 4DF92129681 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 19:49:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 sEBdqMe5ddBW for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 19:49:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us (arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us [50.1.8.254]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32E8912967F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 19:49:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from newserver.arneill-py.local ([fe80::e9e0:5b4:170e:c286]) by newserver.arneill-py.local ([fe80::e9e0:5b4:170e:c286%11]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 19:49:07 -0800
From: Michel Py <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Subject: RE: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago
Thread-Topic: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago
Thread-Index: AQG+jtYc44BqMJsJkp1R9/WxzQmWpALHtyGeoVoAj/CAABSEMIAABWhygAAASmA=
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 03:49:05 +0000
Message-ID: <F04ED1585899D842B482E7ADCA581B8459489BA1@newserver.arneill-py.local>
References: <844840869.114000858.1485299485194.JavaMail.zimbra@peachymango.org> <20170124235626.042F960836B0@rock.dv.isc.org> <158901d276b3$387d6050$a97820f0$@huitema.net> <F04ED1585899D842B482E7ADCA581B8459489B47@newserver.arneill-py.local> <20170125032702.11D576089F56@rock.dv.isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20170125032702.11D576089F56@rock.dv.isc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [96.81.169.1]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/RsZyWrUQSLDmTf_0v2-_fWcIHqE>
Cc: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, '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 03:49:11 -0000

> Mark Andrews wrote :
> But Microsoft aren't the only ones that are looking to deploy IPv6-only due to not
> having enough IPv4 addresses internally.  There is also Google, Facebook ...

Your record has a groove. Been reading this for 15 years.

> The IETF has produced multiple solutions that provide IPv4 as a service with IPv6-only to the node. 
> All of them require IPv6 nodes and/or applications to be updated to be generally useful.

I run an IPv4-only network.

I like Brian Carpenter's pragmatism. The IPv6-only dream only exists in the IETF ivory tower.

Michel.