RE: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary

["Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Title: Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary

+1

 

The press reaction is likely to be better as well.

 

The only point to doing the IPv6 only approach is if you want to demonstrate that it is entirely impractical and drill it into folks heads that we need to be more realistic in our approach here.

 

The double NAT approach is much closer to what the actual transition is going to look like. The only difference is that I think we might just be able to work out a viable means of punching holes so that video-conferencing works if we actually set our minds to it.

 

 

---

From: Sam Hartman [mailto:hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wed 19/12/2007 3:19 PM
To: alh-ietf@xxxxxxxx
Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx; iaoc@xxxxxxxx; 'Pete Resnick'; 'IETF Chair'; dcrocker@xxxxxxxx; 'John C Klensin'; iesg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary

>>>>> "Tony" == Tony Hain <alh-ietf@xxxxxxxx> writes:

    Tony> the right experiment. It is not right because it does
    Tony> nothing positive, other than the threat -maybe- spurring
    Tony> some action. A more realistic experiment would be to run the
    Tony> entire week with a double-nat for IPv4 (and nats between the
    Tony> access points to simulate consumer-to-consumer
    Tony> configurations), where the most public one has absolutely no
    Tony> provision for punching holes (because realistically an ISP
    Tony> is not going to punch inbound holes for its customers, or
    Tony> allow them to).

I strongly support this experiment and believe it would be a really
good idea to run.  I do think behave-compatible nats should be used,
but besides that, I think the experiment you propose is far more
valuable than the v6-only experiment.


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf