Re: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Wed, 25 January 2017 15:44 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 E195312999D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 07:44:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 ZVtPrIVYQMpl for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 07:44:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5917129984 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 07:44:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.32.60.143] (142-254-101-176.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [142.254.101.176]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id v0PFhprT065301 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 08:43:52 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 142-254-101-176.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [142.254.101.176] claimed to be [10.32.60.143]
From: "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 07:44:51 -0800
Message-ID: <E0D78925-8365-4965-BB30-773D528DC489@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <031501d2771a$373486d0$a59d9470$@olddog.co.uk>
References: <844840869.114000858.1485299485194.JavaMail.zimbra@peachymango.org> <fc6770df-850b-a4b4-de00-f20cc69b4944@gmail.com> <5ECECBD0342DFE1DA15CFE63@PSB> <d1045a54-8ce8-8b04-593f-29b4193f7623@dcrocker.net> <031501d2771a$373486d0$a59d9470$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5319)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/d32xjzTUbUuuYCWP7MdXTcA-dDM>
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 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 
that.

> 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