Re: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago

[Mark Andrews <[e-mail]>]

In message <[e-mail]>
, Matthew Pounsett writes:
> --94eb2c1245889d92230546ef644f
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> 
> On 24 January 2017 at 18:32, Christian Huitema <[e-mail]> 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.

There is benefit in making the ssid "ietf" not native IPv4 and
native IPv6 and for us to be eating our own dog food on it.  Tell
people that it isn't DS native.  Don't tell them which IPv4 as a
service technology they are using until the plenary.  Most of the
IPv4 as a service technologies shouldn't impact anyone when done
at the network level as they just present as double NAT IPv4 layer
to the device with a resticted IPv4 path MTU.

When you get to IPv4 as a service node level it becomes more
interesting.  This is where DNS64/NAT64 and DS-lite (node mode)
fit.

Have "ietf-native" ssid (dual stack native IPv4/IPv6) as a fallback
network.  We already have various fallback ssids.  It isn't hard
to switch ssids.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: [phone]                 INTERNET: [e-mail]