Re: IETF network incremental plan
Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net> Thu, 17 November 2016 04:52 UTC
Return-Path: <bensons@queuefull.net>
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 35676129532 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 20:52:53 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=queuefull.net
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 brSBE3RUXj3C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 20:52:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it0-x234.google.com (mail-it0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67881129593 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 20:52:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it0-x234.google.com with SMTP id j191so19929603ita.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 20:52:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=queuefull.net; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=/bQZSOqYzegwD4l4SVD7NruO+OT3m9XfHpIuLWhy0oU=; b=TBd1LOwBobU8D8XNPcLvnt5o/PbS2q0XP2MgxDa8Ig4q6WzoHi1Cw+JoQXsqibfVo9 JrFDv9BdlNKOyPV1nUjbEIGEvzvcD3zY6e44V5+mV2DsgCopRaW4gv40vhsWAUiFD1Nd 6FICRWyfWNiFeGXDaBz+CXI68XyqPieXWWELc=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=/bQZSOqYzegwD4l4SVD7NruO+OT3m9XfHpIuLWhy0oU=; b=JXEY6Ztv/nzN7dfeduhKBDs5KQwVBmOWqX4TE163F4IpfbWabFRZQ7UPn+PowgOv8x TzQnfLKofYSzjZDrpLIWQTmsLc2a9U1REF/aldKNGmpZOOpzxkMoTC/xis6gzItqqik2 M8BJl/4BMfuRR4wHhFuaPWFqsptcGRaGtfLP1OtymQy+X0rzDVMrLwIQk+CjDBhc7ifR QUYWvVWQFf+EUT7F0h6il3aiVKiupPWbhEBDnnSJTq9EBwE9kjJdJ7d/9QRI437g2Q/X F8dJYYBF2TJ8soj+YNp1IhQOLmWLQP7GIgfyF0Jb9EGON/J6V3o2u4mtQJOYeOuZaedP UimQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvcrE1/j2i2jmMTZuG6hSY+O3OkRg3p9a77Gq2+HjtT1+KDdwAdXgQ9QoI+RS+d+HvZ3AMi2SqxDB++s1w==
X-Received: by 10.36.181.9 with SMTP id v9mr10674496ite.48.1479358368549; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 20:52:48 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.11.161 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 20:52:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <04D0964A-B0E7-4F9C-A725-65D9429492E9@virtualized.org>
References: <0C5BCD32-2D2A-42B9-8DEA-A1E1A527A8BB@consulintel.es> <m2zikzq7tg.wl-randy@psg.com> <dbcca137-9fef-723c-8fbd-edb12aff0b46@gmail.com> <04D0964A-B0E7-4F9C-A725-65D9429492E9@virtualized.org>
From: Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:52:48 +0900
Message-ID: <CAP4=VcjCTxrxhtoaN=fdbUr37zd1j9=aQP2BTgSca3o-rv91Mg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IETF network incremental plan
To: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045d99160dd390054177f622"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/T3WZ6npK5GuyKb90JPkxxzKJk3U>
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: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 04:52:53 -0000
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:34 AM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote: > > I sort of like the idea of making the default IETF SSID IPv6 only, with > other SSIDs that support v4/dual stack. It would probably be an eye opening > experience for some. > > Perhaps it would be eye opening for some. For a subset of those, perhaps it would even cause them to do something helpful: write drafts, debug software, fix their networks, harass their service providers and IT depts, etc. But for others, it will merely be an inconvenience. E.g., I imagine somebody not paying close attention to announcements on the mailing list, showing up to a Monday morning meeting, connecting to the IETF network, wondering why their employer's VPN isn't working, not getting email, ... This experience is certainly not the end of the world for anybody. But it may cause extra work for chairs, the NOC, et al. It's not clear to me how we weigh the costs vs benefits. I think it would be valuable to consider data from the NOC such as proportions of v6 / v4 traffic. But for now I'm a skeptic of intentionally breaking network connectivity for attendees. -Benson
- IETF network incremental plan JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: IETF network incremental plan Randy Bush
- Re: IETF network incremental plan Ted Lemon
- Re: IETF network incremental plan Paul Wouters
- Re: IETF network incremental plan JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: IETF network incremental plan Michael Richardson
- RE: IETF network incremental plan ynir.ietf
- Re: IETF network incremental plan Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IETF network incremental plan Andrew Sullivan
- Re: IETF network incremental plan David Conrad
- Re: IETF network incremental plan JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: IETF network incremental plan Benson Schliesser
- Re: IETF network incremental plan Dave Crocker
- Re: IETF network incremental plan Tim Chown
- Re: IETF network incremental plan Ted Lemon
- Re: IETF network incremental plan Dave Crocker
- Re: IETF network incremental plan Yoav Nir
- Re: IETF network incremental plan Randy Bush
- Re: IETF network incremental plan Jari Arkko
- Re: IETF network incremental plan Brian E Carpenter