Re: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago

Warren Kumari <> Thu, 26 January 2017 00:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E37A12941E for <>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 16:14:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AYyTiMqB1IVb for <>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 16:14:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0150129420 for <>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 16:14:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id k15so47694954qtg.3 for <>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 16:14:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=DE4CpH7X3J1yjK9GMPOikG1V/1x7dwmchyqgRp8wjI4=; b=Gs8R7pIQG2fWr8snNzohV07FGpCa8ewj/n63BsZY7hzNpwQaUku2Di/BmJOYGKFfaI zVUyw4JRQwkehIMS1IsFBTpbn/dxGXoh1m2MP1QOSPGkCDXAJMBl8Q20sstZ7oWvJYZF epZP4YOG/BgYFmTqoTdh/kI0roqjtIVSuPecuIcifNJ38pebdCz28aj06Kvp3V6wF3+L Ov7PrgjDMwsJyniiLeo5pXUz8/wFMLET8yehJj7ApE7H22hwZOBsEHnRJ8dyYm3zysqs 4J/TAbBuCK67FFwE5aETS1+vHEa2QZ6NpHzsGU9huWm2eXPODgDpVMTh0MLgwnG7wMtj u7Fw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=DE4CpH7X3J1yjK9GMPOikG1V/1x7dwmchyqgRp8wjI4=; b=pxOKHVRUC+X+m6TNVh9qoTZpZIorrQT9DCFxcslbg8Wrww2qMbSNn1h/rhi+2DxMI9 wAmzGLzkGbLqvhSL9ZnvSyRdI5qBiUnyfdTzPApL+giM7TfOAQrPqibFtq76bK16iQbv fvgywdzJjXFWAWQR5giuq+cEOPI2gZbXEzqjwvGP/HQN9TwdskllPK10Db8hdE17JTvW FyhYDEbrzvagkS3GPAzCTlAWl8n4ZtVIy7LTbizcoe6o6Ddw8X6mLDPJptUqp4GfHfMd +4DmS/s946epgmSemucqv4RQ3GHS/y6ILVj6ohDXM6AQD0zkVa7fLJFp5nlStqpCiXX6 5Y8A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIdcI9y/qZtri7EeAvPQjNBP9ROCtPwepOHCUwFPzHrRsvmG/xW8b665tzl1t3E8rUxh8EhSjXKlF4F+qFX
X-Received: by with SMTP id p28mr36496qtf.263.1485389691670; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 16:14:51 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 16:14:21 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <158901d276b3$387d6050$a97820f0$> <> <WM!572ad9a6ae19416c99bd6357d98a5df59a81b46a887701f7fe5b0c3faf7d157d9ed99107720fab7bcb2711df4ea4ce8c!> <> <>
From: Warren Kumari <>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 19:14:21 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago
To: Michal Krsek <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Cc: " Disgust" <>
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: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 00:14:54 -0000

- - -

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Michal Krsek <> wrote:
> Hi Franck,
> Besides all the passive aggressiveness of some responses, I like what Paul
> Hoffman proposed and I would be game to help run this... However I don't
> have control on the IETF network. How would I go about requesting an SSID
> for IPv6-only with NAT64/DNS64 is setup?
> I would take care of running a jabber channel, encourage people to switch
> and test, create some forms to collect experience and report back.
> I would even be willing to offer a real vintage LinkedIn IPv6 polo shirt as
> prize... ;)
> as Randy wrote already, various SSIDs with various v6 setups are deployed
> regularly for years.

We've also had *very* similar discussions a number of times. I'd been
trying to stay out of this tread because rant, but I'd really
encourage people to read some of the archives and similar.

An IPv6-only SSID already exists -- it's even currently called
"ietf-v6ONLY" (For users wanting pure IPv6 ). There is also
"ietf-nat64" (IPv6 stack with NAT64). This information is regularly
communicated -- for example:
Jim's email "[97all] IETF 97 Network Information – Seoul, South Korea"
the IETF NOC reports - e.g: for IETF97 -
, Slide 6 shows associations per SSID. 3 on ietf-v6ONLY and 19 on
As someone who's been involved in the NOC, I'm slightly irritated by
the "You should really supply X, everyone wants it, how do I get this
done?!" tone when it's been available (and not very widely used) for
many years, and that a few seconds looking would have shown this.

There has also been lots of previous discussion on this, for example:
IETF 97 Plenary -

7. IAB Open Mic Session

"John Brzozowski referred to the IAB statement on IPv6, and suggested
making the primary IETF SSID v6-only, perhaps with NAT64. One thing
Comcast is working on is v6-only for end-user devices, supporting
NAT64 and other implementations. They are seeing an increase in IPv6
traffic and a decrease in IPv4 traffic. John Brzozowski said that it
makes sense for the IETF community's primary SSID to outline a path
forward for IPv6-only.

Jari Arkko said that he would like to see some of this, and thinks
that an incremental approach is what we need. Lee Howard asked how he
would like the IAB to write tht plan. Jari Arkko replied that an
Internet-Draft would work.

* Mark Townsley noted that the IETF turned off IPv4 for an hour at
IETF 71 in Philadelphia back in 2008. There are other technical
conferences of size that are going this already. Mark Townsley suggest
that we move to IPv6-only, and turn off NAT64 during the plenary as an

* David Schinazi expressed support John Brzozowski's initiative
towards IPv6-only."

IETF71 IPv4 Outage  -

IETF network incremental plan -- 16 Nov 2016 -

[v6ops] IPv6-only wifi during IETF meetings? - expect higher energy
consumption -- 16 Nov 2016 -

Moving to having the primary SSID be v6 only, or nat64 or whatever is
definitely doable, but it should really be approached in a reasoned
manner, looking at things like how the network currently works,
responses from the surveys, etc.


>                 Michal

I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.