Re: [v6ops] v6-only (with NAT64) as default network during a conference?

[George Michaelson <[e-mail]>]

A good point, and diluting focus is often not useful. But I do note that
mobile device access is probably the most visible uptake we have now
worldwide, and its somewhat amusing how little visibility that has inside
IETF. I suspect the verizon customer base aside, few of the attendees
realize half or more of the room could have been using V6 on the telephony
radio spectrum, given a chance.

And you do note there are also risks of breakage in '(with some NAT
traversal technology potentially broken).' but I take your main point: the
goal is to test what breaks, and NAT64 is probably the best path to do that
while keeping a useful net.

Aren't the VPN failure modes you mention in the NAT64 case also plausible
examples which will break in a 464XLAT case?


On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Jan 22, 2014, at 8:35 PM, George Michaelson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > naively, it would be lovely if we could do what an RIR has done, and
> secure alternate SIM for use within a limited horizon and price point,
> which will do 64XLAT for those of us who have Android 4.x enabled devices.
>
> I don't think doing 464XLAT is interesting on the IETF network, because it
> looks just like an IPv4 NATTed network to the host (with some NAT traversal
> technology potentially broken).
>
> The point of setting up an IPv6-only network is to discover what breaks,
> and hopefully to get people used to using IPv6, if it mostly doesn't break.
>   The point of enabling NAT64 is that it is more likely to reveal than
> conceal breakage, and additionally makes it possible to actually use the
> network, which is still a bit difficult on the completely v6-only network,
> more's the pity.
>
>