Re: LLC Board Meeting Details - 14 May 2020

Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Fri, 08 May 2020 20:33 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 EBEBC3A0CE5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 May 2020 13:33:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 Qn-sgPav7beC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 May 2020 13:33:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E4DF3A0EAC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 May 2020 13:25:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C038B38984; Fri, 8 May 2020 16:23:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 5DDuxGz1mQ2Q; Fri, 8 May 2020 16:23:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DD1138982; Fri, 8 May 2020 16:23:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6247F591; Fri, 8 May 2020 16:25:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani@gmail.com>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: LLC Board Meeting Details - 14 May 2020
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBOVCv7P5nvGiae__f=pnMzXq0BtdweFAiAWLwgdg6_gZw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <158889282783.23704.1421198034874120499@ietfa.amsl.com> <fc27f4e6-c71a-a266-f501-96a0ed637367@gmail.com> <2D35A1DD-72E2-4E09-8A81-32770D357D29@cooperw.in> <9717fa55-af80-050b-3dd6-1bec957a31d0@gmail.com> <CABcZeBO_6vwxn3XTJfJvHGifx-boyKQ2KxVAS2-x-i5NFKpd9w@mail.gmail.com> <bfbea793-9b07-ee56-3b34-cf2054562e66@gmail.com> <CABcZeBOVCv7P5nvGiae__f=pnMzXq0BtdweFAiAWLwgdg6_gZw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 08 May 2020 16:25:29 -0400
Message-ID: <23956.1588969529@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/VOeUMhaKahAIGXcQ-H2tyGGkKJo>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 08 May 2020 20:33:11 -0000

    fhfrediani> Perhaps one of the reasons they are not being sufficiently adopted
    fhfrediani> because of the lack examples of people and organizations using them
    fhfrediani> and the main propose is that as much as possible organizations start
    fhfrediani> to do that in the many ways possible, and IETF is an natural
    fhfrediani> one. Really do you see such an inconvenience on that ?

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
    > Well, the other example besides videoconferencing that usually comes up
    > here is Github, and yes, it would be quite a large inconvenience not to
    > be able to use Github.

I'd like to moderate the discussion/decision slightly.

1) I would like to see native use of IPv6 for a service to be considered among
   the top-5 criteria for selecting one service over another.

2) The time I would make IPv4-only connectivity for a service to be a problem
   is if fails to work for an IPv6-only desktop/etc. system via NAT64.
   (use of XLAT464 not acceptable).
   I believe that is essentially identical to the criteria that Apple applies
   to their AppStore.

I use github.com from IPv6-only systems regularly via NAT64.
It works great, except for certain docker configurations, which are a problem
with Docker.  I haven't tried ietf.webex.com yet.
(I will note that webex audio appears to have stopped working this week from
the public IPv4 that my desktop has)

There are a number of places that are running publically accessible NAT64s.
I'm skeptical that these will survive as they are identical to open proxies
from a nuissance point of view.

{I would otherwise suggest that any IPv4-only service that we IETF decides we
*need* have a DC:SIIT proxy in front of it, operated by us.  But, it won't
work unless we put our AAAA into their DNS, otherwise TLS issues.}

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [