IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 25 January 2017 19:48 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 A88BE129B59 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 11:48:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 hzFxhRkT-MiD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 11:48:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x236.google.com (mail-pg0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0061129B3E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 11:48:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x236.google.com with SMTP id 194so66880765pgd.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 11:48:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YqQ8t4Adwo5B4RHpPgoU2jrJfQeBWXfsSVhvUPeRPIY=; b=HKQtlIlFmXboghU3t6mA+ofFgyTJaTJqVwugfiHfRhubtH7kpdHoEbDI1qxpLhu0PX 7heDv6AJiThhD+8VTNtICD1bGEoAwboLdi1At4BaRvL5eXqgW6HSvSV2updLZswzHTIr +Rf3QzWw3eRGrNQL5mBlcrbJaFm4GBetF2aGbxNhd5NswPhjuQYry3HkdPO5HikXpQ4J e0GPGkpFcCl+/hZV3x1l4LkP42CKE6lW7yuFIW3HqrtzeMrFN6Iq3qYxcQfCGizf7Xlv sBbTPN/mfJVNO/iPXckcgldzm0HfwG3ljJfFmYps1fCJlzLJRb00VcJySuVU/4SQzGt1 iTrQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=YqQ8t4Adwo5B4RHpPgoU2jrJfQeBWXfsSVhvUPeRPIY=; b=PKSgkOzshmSEQNLbc65NFmBBImdWzMnqvfhIFmJIMwFF7TRrVr0dz9lSNXYOl3fRL0 A1XAs8igs1mwlwZfKGzBBY9yq9pTSocRFcWLVPsoj9E3ix+C1E2SH/5pkuBlspixk62S kQirTQZ3Ar53tD4nDj7Op09ugDb3pp0up14J9Nj8SYql7e8eMjvtgyYj+s2qyrQqH7rS zJYXmDFE7ATZNwR7ZoY7jdFsQ2i7ZyuGNPHVJ36JrBbaSRT/T9xUqhziNE81h3+3poT9 6OVNRGB0wM0l1at4OFRcjE2wMneg/jQ86EIoboK5pC7zLwj/qvgNE0ilT5BV6TdrnYV6 0ETQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLd+G4txLym7ht4C9TQT8jM3jYg9vHJPZl5yFPWTzaTt4Djy9RvjvEZJ/VpEYMX8w==
X-Received: by 10.99.36.7 with SMTP id k7mr1021761pgk.201.1485373705349; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 11:48:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.26] ([118.149.111.106]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q19sm3020708pfl.21.2017.01.25.11.48.23 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 25 Jan 2017 11:48:24 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <844840869.114000858.1485299485194.JavaMail.zimbra@peachymango.org> <fc6770df-850b-a4b4-de00-f20cc69b4944@gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <219961e5-1381-9b19-4bdc-8efb27addcba@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 08:48:29 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <fc6770df-850b-a4b4-de00-f20cc69b4944@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/xmywlMtJxgJHLAhbhRGIYrLSY7Q>
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 19:48:29 -0000

On 25/01/2017 21:53, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> 
> 
> On 24/01/2017 23:11, Franck Martin wrote:
>> I think it is time to move to the next level of IPv6 deployment.
>>
>> Ideally the IETF WiFi network should now only provide the following 2 
>> networks:
>> 1)IPv6-only
>> 2)IPv6-only with NAT64
>>
>> The later should be the default network.
>>
>> However you would say, well some stuff will break, some non technical 
>> people will use the IETF network and may have a bad experience, etc...
>>
>> So to be conservative but at the same time futurist and like it was 
>> done a few years back, why not create again an IPv4 outage of a few 
>> hours where the above 2 networks would be the only networks available?
>>
>> Depending on results, this outage could be expanded to a full day at 
>> the following meeting, until the IPv4 network is totally removed from 
>> the WiFi?
> 
> How about those that designed IPv6 and their ADs subject themselves to 
> this regime and report to the rest of us how they got on?

I've helped a bit, and I exercise the model suggested by RFC1671
most days. It works. I see no reason to subject myself to an artificial
restriction.

   Brian

v2.3.2 | Report a Bug | By Email