Re: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago

"Paul Hoffman" <> Wed, 25 January 2017 15:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E195312999D for <>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 07:44:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZVtPrIVYQMpl for <>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 07:44:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (Opus1.Proper.COM []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5917129984 for <>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 07:44:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id v0PFhprT065301 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 08:43:52 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be []
From: "Paul Hoffman" <>
To: IETF <>
Subject: Re: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 07:44:51 -0800
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <031501d2771a$373486d0$a59d9470$>
References: <> <> <5ECECBD0342DFE1DA15CFE63@PSB> <> <031501d2771a$373486d0$a59d9470$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5319)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 15:44:56 -0000

On 25 Jan 2017, at 6:49, Adrian Farrel wrote:

> It could be very valuable to set up various v6-only networks with 
> different
> tools and methodologies, and invite us all to try them out.

At IETF meetings over the past few years, I have seen various SSIDs that 
indicate v6-only and v6-with-some-protocol, so I think we already do 

> This would be best
> done with some feedback mechanisms (a simple form showing, OS and 
> version,
> applications, experiences?) and might show that at future IETFs we 
> could run
> specific networks.

At IETF meetings over the past few years, I have not seen reports to the 
IETF community about these networks.

Franck: Organizing such feedback mechanisms would be *very* helpful to 
those of us who might support more emphasis on those technologies in the 
nearer future. I wouldn't be so resistant to using such a network if I 
knew what to look for.

Others: if you want to see this experiment succeed, maybe gamify it a 
bit and offer small prizes at the Bits-and-Bytes for the most successful 
experience on these nets and the most humo(u)rous failures found.

--Paul Hoffman