MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
Precedence: list

--f403045d99160dd390054177f622
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

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

--f403045d99160dd390054177f622
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:34 AM, David Conrad <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a hre=
f=3D"mailto:drc@virtualized.org" target=3D"_blank">drc@virtualized.org</a>&=
gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 =
0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D""><br>
</span>I sort of like the idea of making the default IETF SSID IPv6 only, w=
ith other SSIDs that support v4/dual stack. It would probably be an eye ope=
ning experience for some.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Perhaps it would be eye opening for so=
me. For a subset of those, perhaps it would even cause them to do something=
 helpful: write drafts, debug software, fix their networks, harass their se=
rvice providers and IT depts, etc. But for others, it will merely be an inc=
onvenience.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>E.g., I imagine somebody not pay=
ing close attention to announcements on the mailing list, showing up to a M=
onday morning meeting, connecting to the IETF network, wondering why their =
employer&#39;s VPN isn&#39;t working, not getting email, ... This experienc=
e is certainly not the end of the world for anybody. But it may cause extra=
 work for chairs, the NOC, et al.</div><div><br></div><div>It&#39;s not cle=
ar to me how we weigh the costs vs benefits. I think it would be valuable t=
o consider data from the NOC such as proportions of v6 / v4 traffic. But fo=
r now I&#39;m a skeptic of intentionally breaking network connectivity for =
attendees.</div><div><br></div><div>-Benson</div><div><br></div></div></div=
></div>

--f403045d99160dd390054177f622--