IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-7@u-1.phicoh.com> Mon, 17 July 2017 14:41 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b7900FA3D@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3DC8131C3B for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 07:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <f4MLeHZLdgxr>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Improper folded header field made up entirely of whitespace: References: ...J158udPDLSFo==EN4LHjWb_YzD5Q@mail.gmail.com>\n
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 f4MLeHZLdgxr for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 07:41:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DBB2131BF1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 07:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #130) id m1dX7DB-0000FzC; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 16:41:25 +0200
Message-Id: <m1dX7DB-0000FzC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: v6ops@ietf.org
From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-7@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b7900FA3D@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <7643C1DC-76A3-4652-9BB1-D0D42801F37E@consulintel.es> <CAEqgTWYOe=jWp=zVZNLx6DjKjNpPTYaq2jmjryudrGZHKZNq6g@mail.gmail.com> <A5D0385C-F755-4B44-86D8-6E618E77193F@consulintel.es> <CAPt1N1kroh2cPkTr8HRfNjLTdG0hkC1oQsUZdhQzQA5tA9-xug@mail.gmail.com> <9AF791E9-1E12-425E-93A4-2913E2D18CBA@consulintel.es> <CAPt1N1kU4cpVCsp7W3XNAZupYqjTWVH+BNp9bwtznnWD_uP2oQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAEqgTWZzZW0wKggDXjY=-aMfDxzd5-GoRqju1829XwY3aHQuYg@mail.gmail.com> <0FAF1E05-DA4B-47BF-95F7-7EFCD1BED9B0@cable.comcast.com> <42188852-BBEB-4D75-967F-4BED79BBBCAE@consulintel.es> <CAFU7BARahTfH_Uy_t22EthGuFMJ=q-N1zxismNAVkHWWJA-Obw@mail.gmail.com> <CBA23B1B-C5A3-413C-B399-93F537C99015@consulintel.es> <CAFU7BARz_u92NweYkTizT2=q420sBRh11m9bqWO9+aexCi3ANA@mail.gmail.com> <2A639918-C6AC-44B8-8D66-5293EE13A7BD@consulintel.es> <CAFU7BASrxoroJVHwxFpwwBxCUC62_VZXsUGgfDOj6y+KVWk6tw@mail.gmail.com> <C510C095-B9AB-432F-A050-FD9CD640A6DE@consulintel.es> <CAFU7BAR413hwY_G2Cw-Ab+J158udPDLSFo==EN4LHjWb_YzD5Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 18 Jul 2017 00:23:35 +1000 ." <CAFU7BAR413hwY_G2Cw-Ab+J158udPDLSFo==EN4LHjWb_YzD5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 16:41:24 +0200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/JmHCCo9GgEoX4qyHNLSkaUDcERU>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Incremental Deployment of IPv6-only Wi-Fi for IETF Meetings
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 14:41:31 -0000

> To be honest I'm a bit lost now. Does anything I've said makes you
> think that we are suggesting to migrate ALL end-user devices and
> enterprise network on this planet to IPv6-only overnight? If it
> does, my apologies, it was not what I meant.  I do not believe that
> switching between two existing SSID at one conference is going to
> have such a world-wide impact ;)

If we assume that home wifi networks will remain dual stack for the next
couple of decades to support IPv4-only devices (the WAN link can be come
IPv6-only but the CPE will offer dual stack on wifi one way or another).

If we assume that most office wifi networks (and networks that connect measurement
equipment, industrial controllers, etc.) will do the same, then why would
we advocate that other wifi networks switch to a completely different way of
providing IPv4 connectivity?

Do we do that just to make sure that anything related to IPv6 is as confusing
as possible?

For extra confusion, we also call a network that supports NAT64 'IPv6-only'.
I guess that just to make sure that there is no way to describe a network that
really just provides IPv6 without any access to IPv4.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email