Re: IETF network incremental plan

Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Thu, 17 November 2016 05:13 UTC

Return-Path: <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
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 279E2129431 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 21:13:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.718
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.718 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ecs.soton.ac.uk
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 2Znufqc0rr8M for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 21:13:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2C8E129420 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 21:13:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id uAH5Dk9w011749; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 05:13:46 GMT
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk uAH5Dk9w011749
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=201304; t=1479359626; bh=R87CVvJufrRXx0CJFNSPMuQTjKs=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=twc4+Ny2k9ET+r2p8RII71tM5DoByoUcYNlV03JScDs5XiNoMkHclFGud0/Kfw9K4 gNgqsP4YosIS09fqQaH3FxXFqF1UEg7tNe2s92grRPXmStQfd7f5CIVFzxN7vXouf/ hYjgLc6TPve+jKryws9/g02M8kT/+s+30rabdH00=
Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id sAG5Dk0168500142iJ ret-id none; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 05:13:46 +0000
Received: from t2001067c03700128b99f09b0aa2133f4.v6.meeting.ietf.org (t2001067c03700128b99f09b0aa2133f4.v6.meeting.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:67c:370:128:b99f:9b0:aa21:33f4]) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id uAH5DbqD020507 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 17 Nov 2016 05:13:42 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.1 \(3251\))
Subject: Re: IETF network incremental plan
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <b4845eb1-ed01-48c0-1933-267494be480e@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 05:13:33 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EMEW3|51c4198b732c79300fcd57414ef2b957sAG5Dk03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|C19E77B1-E10C-417A-8AEA-66CE12384F0F@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
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> <CAP4=VcjCTxrxhtoaN=fdbUr37zd1j9=aQP2BTgSca3o-rv91Mg@mail.gmail.com> <b4845eb1-ed01-48c0-1933-267494be480e@dcrocker.net> <C19E77B1-E10C-417A-8AEA-66CE12384F0F@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3251)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-ECS-MailScanner-SpamScore: ss
X-smtpf-Report: sid=sAG5Dk016850014200; tid=sAG5Dk0168500142iJ; client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=3:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: uAH5Dk9w011749
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/c8XsScLhfgWsPMccW3Cp-PH7WA8>
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.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: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 05:13:56 -0000

> On 17 Nov 2016, at 04:58, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 11/17/2016 1:52 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>> But for others, it will merely be an inconvenience.
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> Coercive experiments on production services tend to have collateral effects that typically are significant and undesirable.
> 
> The IETF meeting network is a production service for more than 1000 people.

The discussion isn’t about which networks are available, it’s about which is the default.  I can certainly change my default on my MacBook, though rather annoyingly not on my iPhone (or is there a way to do that?), I just need to be aware of what/where the IPv6-only SSID lives.

Some more prominent messages to, for example, the 97attendees list would be helpful in promoting more people to at least try the NAT64 SSID, perhaps with links to relevant info/resources and a wiki to share experiences. 

It would be interesting to see some stats on associations to the different SSIDs.

Tim