Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: v6ops@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2698E10DFFCDE
	for <v6ops@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri,  3 Jul 2026 12:30:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1;
	t=1783107050; bh=h6eVUcnm7+ITqERqqGmvSJaZSIoUDIlHVT37MJKIFGs=;
	h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References;
	b=aUmiWqzMF1Ws5nb4tBKdFJm/zlf5Nado/DdCQeAewhkT36wYZBFAtSw+vAWUgcktc
	 88G9RaaRhm4AaKway6/Nzpc64LSXp6mZH95Ekumrvn1pDT8AW6/aZUk9y0oOh1UZvd
	 eTIA8ryjQu7UmcKajd3Na4dDvyYW8pYy0KW3oTFQ=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.7
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1,
	SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key)
	reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31])
	by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id ENPbFtaTZ1B3 for <v6ops@mail2.ietf.org>;
	Fri,  3 Jul 2026 12:30:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com
 [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1])
	by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E17E10DFFBB8
	for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri,  3 Jul 2026 12:30:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([197.226.9.235])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 663JUAeA022110
	(version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Fri, 3 Jul 2026 12:30:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail;
	t=1783107022; x=1783193422; i=@elandsys.com;
	bh=h6eVUcnm7+ITqERqqGmvSJaZSIoUDIlHVT37MJKIFGs=;
	h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References;
	b=1EQQ1XyU/PEhm6YcOUSx0mcIWDSzLEgqjJ9F98/bq+/crwUm9BTpTbZwmyMS1gHQh
	 CketLJlDA4yoL4HpdVcywf2JkOxMb2T6uremkUk7NwqtoQlv4rqpZ22/CjW0Q2gEyf
	 BgYQmwKjkaWdxPfOSmwigcWgR3wEzOeQ/QqY2AC8=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20260703113719.0a391288@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2026 12:19:55 -0700
To: Franck Martin <franck@peachymango.org>, Gert Doering <gert@space.net>,
        v6ops@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <02C55ACD-BD85-4002-BABD-5159836C9306@peachymango.org>
References: <B87CF61D-7435-4BE8-9E17-44BD7CDFECFE@peachymango.org>
 <02C55ACD-BD85-4002-BABD-5159836C9306@peachymango.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID-Hash: CAMGSVBLJWAHZBOVNPIU7HRHGX7CXKBJ
X-Message-ID-Hash: CAMGSVBLJWAHZBOVNPIU7HRHGX7CXKBJ
X-MailFrom: sm@elandsys.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency;
 loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-v6ops.ietf.org-0;
 nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size;
 news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5Bv6ops=5D_Re=3A_SMTP_IPv4_outage_1_July?=
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/KseRpIh2LqJoNxlo8rq977nLKug>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:v6ops-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:v6ops-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:v6ops-leave@ietf.org>

Hi Franck, Gert,
At 09:53 AM 03-07-2026, Franck Martin wrote:
>I forgot to add, not knowing the case here, that=20
>it is important to monitor a service over each=20
>IP family to avoid regressions during IPv6=20
>deployment. It is mentioned in the data center draft.
>
>IPv4 outages are also great to send the message,=20
>if we get rid of IPv4 the impact is likely to be=20
>minimum, and not the end of the world, like some would like you to believe=
=85

At 11:07 AM 03-07-2026, Gert Doering wrote:
>As long as the service has working IPv6, a failure on the IPv4 side should
>be most uninteresting to people using this modern Internet thing...
>
>It does emphasize the point that dual-stack without proper monitoring
>of both stacks is a major annoyance.

The outage report included 14.3% of corporate=20
fluff; a similar test on an announcement from=20
another region scored 82%.  The lack of=20
monitoring, in this case, caused the IPv4 service=20
outage to go undetected for over half a day.  It=20
could also happen to the IPv6 service is that=20
service is not properly monitored.  The annual=20
cost to run a monitoring script on a virtual=20
machine would be less than EUR 100.

I sent an email to government agency a few weeks=20
ago.  I guess that I was the only person who=20
noticed that the web service, advertised as dual=20
stack, was not responding to requests over IPv6.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy=20

