Re: [v6ops] Agenda

Fred Baker <> Sat, 13 February 2021 05:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 207E83A0DDC for <>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 21:27:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iTzxEhX7dnmb for <>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 21:27:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::531]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44F553A0DDA for <>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 21:27:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id n10so983553pgl.10 for <>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 21:27:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=BgILUcBRDvYyqTJ7+edZeAzN8MKKiGtdq/waIs+UYpQ=; b=f6yBzk+eymVTs9+jvCEeLVJDTsa/XzRWIGfJfRYz2ue9hddHMsDFNIYSDEk3chE/YD zDMzg+chg1wUUQl7Uj5hC/bz0lef16ENXWNmHndK/aAwM7f2z4g4n6PHnyGhyaDTL+6+ bCRcpc7uUQ4z/AbTs91TynB6skygqXgZAbVFFFrdxdKutMpLWuObxrtmOOYA8C3+JYSL 865TZ7I9J5RBxK96UjWnZQrk94xrBe6WOpD22K+XVqbIbzBxGeDOUVHmqm6auFH/kSm1 NTg+baFJgnWJh+9E6q0CsocA6J+Hb4oncimtc69X4zozomDJ9r6rTospEsqcOBYkXjm9 XDaA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=BgILUcBRDvYyqTJ7+edZeAzN8MKKiGtdq/waIs+UYpQ=; b=YY/HNKyon+Awc70aROAMKHABcx3nthF5tsx4iAWSb6WUf7z8MNOEe3rNCzaTAi4HFo UqJRdWqdS1CNT1vpjsjHo6bEse46U7yg4IQ3NUhXYrkB//FjnAW1U5tj8geHk7ojAAwl XJarotL3ovehmgrzXV6XP2V1ixVRmn9NLaeD73rntk9b57ec6Gh5KENwRuRJKMku3xK3 vgoV+I1nk7HQUOdb0CdkPoWqi3TMAFbb+jvp4xyVxJkYVUOydTLyM0lGtfU3XzL71grt SMt2yVAfhwzVBeJ+NaAaSFiZ67lVTz48hzl0YBR0wsjjHER0M5qw2ZUdxj/Scruhl5JM ABRg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5307cRsADZwE1IiS0YOlTsgfmeZXxeur5fUnKkICnGTvm75Ft/Wl JCW1LnhLjtWjSwVCTEi87KqVRwUdF6nB0g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwMJGaPGJRmXaksT2CO8mJlO60MSOjza1VD4Y+QojRX8YyG8uuGIY4aedNY1yPMrSf8cSbgvg==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:5f83:: with SMTP id t125mr6171699pgb.405.1613194075182; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 21:27:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([2600:8802:5800:567::1036]) by with ESMTPSA id h3sm10675772pgm.67.2021. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Feb 2021 21:27:54 -0800 (PST)
From: Fred Baker <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D88E9C07-339B-4F55-8286-EE45B168D27C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 21:27:52 -0800
In-Reply-To: <>
To: IPv6 Operations <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Agenda
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2021 05:27:59 -0000

An additional thought. In a number of recent meetings, we have invited discussions from various networks. We're obviously not adamant about this, but our objective is primarily to give folks that have done one of the following, in this order, a chance to talk about it:

    - turned IPv4 off
    - deployed IPv6 in ENTERPRISE
    - do something creative with IPV6 deployment

The objective, consistent with our charter, is to communicate to the IETF places where we have remaining work. If there is any one thing I have walked away with, it is that the specifications are "clear enough", but even with USGv6 and similar tests available, vendors do not have interoperability and the ability to turn IPv4 off as objectives. IPv6 is a checkbox item, not something in which they see a future. If we want to change that, we need networks to turn IPv4 off (as some have) and have other networks follow.

At IETF 110-113 (Prague, San Francisco, Madrid, and Bangkok) I would welcome suggestions of talks that might address those goals and be useful to operators in v6ops. Imagine someone that has several (equipment and application) vendors in their networks talking about what is between them and turning IPv4 off?

Send mail to

> On Feb 12, 2021, at 8:58 PM, Fred Baker <> wrote:
> I have uploaded a preliminary agenda, consisting of draft-peng-v6ops-hbh and draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-addressing-considerations. I also understand that we might see an update for draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment, which (given the current dearth of current drafts) I'll add if we see supportive discussion thereof on the list.
> Of course, if we see other drafts in the coming ten days and there is supportive discussion on the list...