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

I’m saying:

1) We should not try experiments in the IETF network, it has been the rule for ages.
2) If we decide to change that rule, we should try what is good for the market, not what we “wish”

I wish we can turn off IPv4 for every network in the world, but this is not realistic.

Turning off IPv4 in the WAN, but keeping some sort of IPv4 connectivity, is feasible. This is what we need to try.

NAT64 has been tested, in fact most of the RIRs (and of course IETF), have already such a network from long time ago.

Saludos,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
Responder a: <furry13@gmail.com>
Fecha: lunes, 17 de julio de 2017, 10:42
Para: Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
CC: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>, Jim Martin <jim@daedelus.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Asunto: Re: [v6ops] Incremental Deployment of IPv6-only Wi-Fi for IETF Meetings

    On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 6:37 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
    <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> wrote:
    > Tell your bank, your university, your library, etc., to try that.
    >
    > I now that some networks (mainly related to IETF work, vendors, etc.), are doing that, but not in a general market.

    Are you saying IETF should wait until everyone else has done it and
    proved it works and only then we feel safe enough to try it? ;)

    > -----Mensaje original-----
    > De: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
    > Responder a: <furry13@gmail.com>
    > Fecha: lunes, 17 de julio de 2017, 10:34
    > Para: Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
    > CC: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>, Jim Martin <jim@daedelus.com>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
    > Asunto: Re: [v6ops] Incremental Deployment of IPv6-only Wi-Fi for IETF Meetings
    >
    >     On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 6:17 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
    >     <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> wrote:
    >     > In the real world, you will not disable IPv4 in the LANs of end-users or enterprise customers (at least not now, may be in 3-5 years from now).
    >
    >     I disagree with this statement. There are networks doing this. Right
    >     here right now.
    >
    >     > -----Mensaje original-----
    >     > De: v6ops <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org> en nombre de "Brzozowski, John" <John_Brzozowski@comcast.com>
    >     > Responder a: <John_Brzozowski@comcast.com>
    >     > Fecha: lunes, 17 de julio de 2017, 10:14
    >     > Para: Noah <noah@neo.co.tz>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
    >     > CC: Jim Martin <jim@daedelus.com>, IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
    >     > Asunto: Re: [v6ops] Incremental Deployment of IPv6-only Wi-Fi for IETF Meetings
    >     >
    >     >     Agree with Noah and Ted.
    >     >
    >     >     Note the I-D explicitly documents that a fallback, dual stack SSID must remain available as Noah mentions below.
    >     >
    >     >     I fail to see how doing this will harm or discriminate.
    >     >
    >     >     We do need to eat our own dogfood, otherwise we are hypocrites.
    >     >
    >     >     John
    >     >
    >     >     +1-484-962-0060
    >     >
    >     >     From:
    >     >     v6ops <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Noah <noah@neo.co.tz>
    >     >     Date: Monday, July 17, 2017 at 09:01
    >     >     To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
    >     >     Cc: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, v6ops <v6ops@ietf.org>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Jim Martin <jim@daedelus.com>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
    >     >     Subject: Re: [v6ops] Incremental Deployment of IPv6-only Wi-Fi for IETF Meetings
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >     FWIW and to cater for all, would a fallback dual stack SSID work for the status quo while this 2nd v6 SSID is also experimented upon which is a great idea considering this is IETF.
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >     Noah
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >     On 17 Jul 2017 9:54 a.m., "Ted Lemon" <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
    >     >
    >     >     I don't think this is a social justice issue.   Does the IETF think that IPv6 works, or not?   If we think it works, and we have been working for what, 20 years, to make it work, and we have designed all this great
    >     >      transition tech, then why on earth would we not want to use it?   This isn't "one draft."   This is roughly half the work of the IETF for the past two decades.
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >     On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 8:51 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> wrote:
    >     >
    >     >     So we agree to change the rules so that we use this network for every ID that want to experiment with it? Otherwise we discriminate among different authors …
    >     >
    >     >     I think is a really bad precedent.
    >     >
    >     >     Regards,
    >     >     Jordi
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >     -----Mensaje original-----
    >     >     De: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
    >     >     Responder a: <mellon@fugue.com>
    >     >     Fecha: lunes, 17 de julio de 2017, 8:48
    >     >     Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
    >     >     CC: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>, Jim Martin <jim@daedelus.com>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Suresh
    >     >      Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
    >     >     Asunto: Re: [v6ops] Incremental Deployment of IPv6-only Wi-Fi for IETF Meetings
    >     >
    >     >         I don't actually know what the goal of the IETF network is other than to provide connectivity.   Because of the vicissitudes of hotel topology, it is often the case that IETF participants experience issues with the
    >     >      network at least once or twice per IETF despite the best efforts (and they are quite exceptional) of the NOC team.   I do not really see what the damage is that you are hoping to protect against here.   Users who don't read the NOC announcement?   No sympathy.
    >     >       Sorry.
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >     **********************************************
    >     >     IPv4 is over
    >     >     Are you ready for the new Internet ?
    >     >     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
    >     >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >     _______________________________________________
    >     >     v6ops mailing list
    >     >     v6ops@ietf.org
    >     >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >     _______________________________________________
    >     >     v6ops mailing list
    >     >     v6ops@ietf.org
    >     >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >
    >     > **********************************************
    >     > IPv4 is over
    >     > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
    >     > 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
    >     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
    >
    >
    >
    >     --
    >     SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > **********************************************
    > IPv4 is over
    > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
    > 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
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

    -- 
    SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
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.