Re: [v6ops] Incremental Deployment of IPv6-only Wi-Fi for IETF Meetings

I absolutely agree that automatic issue detection is better.
However I fail to see how you automatically go from CLAT logs to
knowing there is an issue with a specific piece of software.
This is a problem that we tried to solve in the past and there is no silver bullet.

As such, I think relying on IETF attendees to check whether their own software works has great value.

David

> On Jul 17, 2017, at 11:52, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> wrote:
> 
> 
> Definitively get them fixed, and towards that we need to identify them. We want to identify them “manually” or “automatically”? I think automatically will work much better. Manually means people may report the first failure, then switch to the fall back network …
> 
> CLAT can be run in a VM (for example using Jool). I’ve done it.
> 
> I’m not a software developer, but Jool provides some logging tools, it is just a matter to get our hands on it.
> 
> There may be other CLAT implementations that can be used. I think Jool is very powerful, take advantage of multiple cores, etc.
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: <dschinazi@apple.com <mailto:dschinazi@apple.com>> en nombre de David Schinazi <dschinazi@apple.com <mailto:dschinazi@apple.com>>
> Responder a: <dschinazi@apple.com <mailto:dschinazi@apple.com>>
> Fecha: lunes, 17 de julio de 2017, 11:48
> Para: <jordi.palet@consulintel.es <mailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es>>
> CC: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com <mailto:randy@psg.com>>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com <mailto:suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com <mailto:housley@vigilsec.com>>, Jim Martin <jim@daedelus.com <mailto:jim@daedelus.com>>
> Asunto: Re: [v6ops] Incremental Deployment of IPv6-only Wi-Fi for IETF Meetings
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jul 17, 2017, at 11:41, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> wrote:
>> 
>> I’ve investigated this with OpenVPN right now using the ietf-nat64 SSID.
>> 
>> The remote OpenVPN server is IPv4-only, has a domain name (so not using literals), however, it seems the name is resolved to the IPv4-only address (maybe not using Apple Sierra OS – latest version- all updated- system APIs), so it fails to work with the NAT64.
>> 
>> I’m sure there are many other apps that have the same problem, it is very unfortunate, I wish programmers do it right and use the systems APIs (and no literals) that make it work, but this is not the case in the real world.
> 
>    Should we then give up on IPv6 or try to get these fixed?
> 
>> The point here is again: Manually asking the participants that get something broken to report it, doesn’t work, while having an automated way to report what is using the CLAT is a much lower effort (actually none for the participants).
> 
>    Which "automated way to report what is [broken] using the CLAT" software are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.consulintel.es <http://www.consulintel.es/>
> The IPv6 Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>