Re: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 25 January 2017 00:33 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 BBB721295D1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 16:33:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 bpciQZR9s1n1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 16:33:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x229.google.com (mail-pg0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::229]) (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 759341295CD for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 16:33:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x229.google.com with SMTP id 14so59114302pgg.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 16:33:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=XgKHCrqy//jKikJ4u10dBkrR2FAh6GfFHwA001EGhUs=; b=Y01zodmwtRP0asWEJuj+ZRA1TfU8us+FHn1WPT67MeKii5G4atTgcpV4G61uhGOdmd 6rmd72MccDQwd8vgSiJIeKepTxjGh1QS8CJe08ZK0kaAzDGw3aPRdl2OpxlITW5wK0Rp yVlQthCT3ZK24lEtSA000Mm97X3MSC7z+znqf8aqYEQLjwj/uZVhPd/7+4+0buZZfR8D /eCZR/iuHkluABe0xFJTAuo0CWImBu5XiLOqxGfZgqyiolDB0CJWM+ZxjImN4AMa27FR So017pREJnd1hNG/mq5YpFKmZhciVOXqnEPquTlmIUFbjfb/2asnbE1OtVVHJymM2Qwy pbTw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=XgKHCrqy//jKikJ4u10dBkrR2FAh6GfFHwA001EGhUs=; b=hrzPKWvb080+OF+7R7giAM3ALjZYYUtk6xFhq7v3uewezLh1tU0QhB4dGok5mID6tI EP+8DmaardmLcBZ+xILPBB0irdXvA7ftYw94UP2kPzt37aHk0+Pn09Mx6duUDAujqxhw I+2pbm74Hlm0YsezjPukRTnf/ssK7v4ZDVaH57k7bkU8I7BQKeRH+krV1EQMOQUateT9 +IFVNkn52X1ubeRqivgfk02KXEXjI6upnCNqS1FfKtZi+Hur5L3CmVscwsmx4/u+EJg3 gRlp9WtbIbgdcLCw/5Vt/eW9lisrLPjhzWdqd5Wh5rKVovp1xYoEjtQZH+nYtrbQFb9+ SuxQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKrUdAluXSlWbsA1Km4DZsBizUs3deHsdeqPKF6crKn3leOT31uSVmiWcfRmeK2gQ==
X-Received: by 10.98.12.77 with SMTP id u74mr42791732pfi.116.1485304401335; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 16:33:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:6382:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:6382:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e129sm28856311pfe.8.2017.01.24.16.33.19 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 24 Jan 2017 16:33:20 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago
To: Franck Martin <franck@peachymango.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <844840869.114000858.1485299485194.JavaMail.zimbra@peachymango.org>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <8112f1a6-f63a-e771-f354-206fbb9d684f@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 13:33:22 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <844840869.114000858.1485299485194.JavaMail.zimbra@peachymango.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/U5AQuWnuIcwb9K1PbmZzLQ8ofvM>
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 00:33:24 -0000

On 25/01/2017 12:11, Franck Martin wrote:
> I think it is time to move to the next level of IPv6 deployment. 
> 
> Ideally the IETF WiFi network should now only provide the following 2 networks: 
> 1)IPv6-only 
> 2)IPv6-only with NAT64 
> 
> The later should be the default network. 
> 
> However you would say, well some stuff will break, some non technical people will use the IETF network and may have a bad experience, etc... 
> 
> 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? 

That would be a good way of damaging IETF productivity for a few hours.

And for what? Moving away from the mainstream coexistence mechanism (dual stack),
to a mechanism known to be intrinsically defective (NAT). I don't see the point.

IPv6-only is a *very* long term goal for campus/enterprise networks, which the IETF
network resembles. Our realistic goal today is for enterprise networks to achieve
dual-stack coexistence, and most enterprise network are nowhere near that point yet.

There is no point in leading from so far out in front that nobody else can
see you.

   Brian

> 
> 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? 
>