IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Wed, 27 August 2014 16:54 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFD5E1A0B09 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 09:54:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -115.168
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-115.168 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 b6OFCOgNtJVI for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 09:54:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 172B71A0346 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 09:54:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2793; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409158478; x=1410368078; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=gT11gjLMjUE6mwN6na0CN5BaLMJk2IO3eu8djkSUZHU=; b=iWuGIh2fGWnXI8X8ARVY03YkSIk8eVQd8plJNGewZ7MNuYCRAuLr4BPw SeSfJlAQjPXfiXS+uV+/Lsb+XToyU/OcsTRknwXfYXSAWER6FP1t5WZkT k1MPtiq95jZFf6qgh8eTbZOrKCjh6DCvKgs/jYCohcx3oZ1aef1mUCsx5 s=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 195
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ah4FALsM/lOtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABbgkdGgSoE03MBgRIWd4QEAQEDAXkFCwIBCAQBCTgyJQIEDgUOiCwIv0YXj0wHgy+BHQEEkS+CBoFKh1mVGoNebIFIgQcBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,412,1406592000"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="350746066"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Aug 2014 16:54:37 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com [173.36.12.85]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7RGsb8S019775 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:54:37 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.15]) by xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com ([173.36.12.85]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 11:54:37 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: James Woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment
Thread-Index: AQHPwheVjjU+IWEWD0aqPTX77t6YGg==
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:54:36 +0000
Message-ID: <35E70324-B972-4411-8CD3-BC07EA553859@cisco.com>
References: <DE860EBC-171E-46E7-A3B6-5E8B79A453CC@cisco.com> <53DFEC6C.3010707@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGRUWxT5XiNxMi_S5VgYtGMLb_FVHXN-ZfGpcY=geix15g@mail.gmail.com> <53E06AC9.9010908@fud.no> <4F7D76F6-BD81-453B-94DC-A3C3DFF68505@delong.com> <8600C096-37D0-4651-92C1-BCFDBA674433@nominum.com> <CAD6AjGTBfyT-zNDJtBKCNtRxd=Hi07678Sr_-HgSGYbjAiF3Tg@mail.gmail.com> <C5281716-DC04-42E6-AC82-0D53E5DA0284@nominum.com> <53E1236A.605@fud.no> <m1XEkJJ-0000BuC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <20140805195402.GO51793@Space.Net> <m1XElwg-0000BbC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <D00834AF.68B6C%Lee@asgard.org> <CAD6AjGQJ3PXpGkk9Cd4d-MhExZ9QrpiseyAqPqmpXzQ-HCyDwQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2=dMg6sua+9v28t173TQVYet6pDU7Xv6RWkbGjqA1ziA@mail.gmail.com> <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303B7DB43@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <20140820003344.23DE61D105DD@rock.dv.isc.org> <D7A0AFA1-86F3-4658-B3BB-B8C4721843DF@delong.com> <CADhXe53yucmTprtF+vqsPsgqF+4-w6RAAqoN2SsFatccZNT=6g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADhXe53yucmTprtF+vqsPsgqF+4-w6RAAqoN2SsFatccZNT=6g@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.117]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_85F99468-6F5E-4821-AFEC-48803C6D5BD0"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/cTfm5QWg7nL4PsExhA5dXW-ffCI
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:54:39 -0000

On Aug 27, 2014, at 9:29 AM, James Woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com> wrote:

> I contend the incentive for customers to upgrade will happen when "have you tried disabling IPv4?" and "do you have IPv6?" are the responses you start seeing in troubleshooting forums in response to questions in the category "Why is $APPLICATION not working / too slow / so unstable?"

True enough, but they’ll need the access problem solved first. It must be feasible to turn off IPv4.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email