Re: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago

Matthew Pounsett <matt@conundrum.com> Wed, 25 January 2017 18:28 UTC

Return-Path: <matt@conundrum.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 A96AC129ACF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 10:28:05 -0800 (PST)
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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=conundrum-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 0kaGrYcTh0yH for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 10:28:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua0-x233.google.com (mail-ua0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::233]) (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 1A084129AC9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 10:28:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua0-x233.google.com with SMTP id y9so166480555uae.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 10:28:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=conundrum-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=i+SQX2aU2l1k6T/o9R4Ye1/cG70oI+13ngXd+CETjFs=; b=BulqE8vvJVhYtw1KEgqyMuz6yQ0V993O/tFFmfavoKNeKVDLp/tEPJG2gcsEVZO4s8 FciH01l2AOczVwgYwCxshaRkE66hvo5sJSSek0TmhkPTcY7AnSgyvYt0UjzHxXID72mO 2+ZEeV4EMsQzLH6phYWR0dQjrMU0/okgG6YSsRE74A4dxchOjj2u0nelkzZgwkxYjFwm e0Z9Rs9MtzRg9aHIpHnPpkllZMvNUk4G1l121jKL+MFFIsrA5hlg08Mv669vKkaP00+Q z+QuNQuxoIUiNq2vmKWUUmpsaLR0GP7qThHtgANndm3HLpVEp7EAIWrT+Ft/mF5t4Wy0 B+Cw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=i+SQX2aU2l1k6T/o9R4Ye1/cG70oI+13ngXd+CETjFs=; b=CH4mmdQUXnjglbHJHyzANc/0HAgpgC2oATeM1NHdPPyU2Pe7QQ7yFM74L/2msqUXds Wb3kd27OVdE0rGbFR/apgAbj2TmgDI8F2wjKpP6bhzjs9IxLvY0B1Ib77XTkS06bsv8t HhseC5bJu5WFW+7fuJLC6ZKYDoDWVVsCCpHSwU3LygRPvc6vaoDKUGuej4XBi2vl1Lyz 84LOHlrmDpjmG4Cc8MqtLKyi/6d0Ee3t+OBInn0fMFZ+MvpKpc80KNz3b9Wq2vFBrKyR 9JnRsp/IiJC0NN5FeQrkjaduYEvAlXKpdrxkkrnw4B/Ko4+awavg+UfPlSh9JpNEejIZ XyDw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJfA8i9tNcSJKVns5u5JiO3Be72Z4w9KhuLQbuBsRrNM0CX6lxMR4qQGtTuIt9q6Acv+u6HfiAAAs2hzg==
X-Received: by 10.176.64.169 with SMTP id i38mr17966720uad.7.1485368882684; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 10:28:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.145.76 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 10:28:02 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <158901d276b3$387d6050$a97820f0$@huitema.net>
References: <844840869.114000858.1485299485194.JavaMail.zimbra@peachymango.org> <20170124235626.042F960836B0@rock.dv.isc.org> <158901d276b3$387d6050$a97820f0$@huitema.net>
From: Matthew Pounsett <matt@conundrum.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 10:28:02 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAiTEH_4WgdmMZQm5nbFbvweibkZ0DAo2feN91zftspD4EbWjg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c1245889d92230546ef644f
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ZlybEtdMjlEjUdOKGzjhRUqQH4k>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, Franck Martin <franck@peachymango.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 18:28:06 -0000

On 24 January 2017 at 18:32, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net> wrote:

>
> Language apart, there is a serious question here. Did the IETF produce the
> right standards for IPv6 only networks? Is NAT64/DNS64 useful or harmful?
> What else are we missing? It seems that the IETF should try to answer that
> sooner rather than later. The IETF culture, besides the flowery language,
> encourages practical engineering and experimentation over speculation. So,
> yes, maybe we should do some practical experimentation, just like Franck
> Martin is proposing.
>
> Experimentation is good.  But don't do it on the main IETF network, as
Franck is suggesting.  That's what we have the v6-only SSID and others are
for.

IETF participants have operational responsibilities.  Any of these "let's
run an experiment on the main access network!" ideas that have a potential
to break anyone's applications are bad ideas.  Such experiments need to be
run on experimental networks.