Franck, I try not to be religious about NAT, and I use NAT44 every day like most people. Also like most people, I experience occasional unexplained failures of web-based transactions. Whether they are due to a NAT garbage-collect or a load-balancer failure, I don't know, of course. But actually I am not deeply concerned about NAT64, although any failures that it generates would be very hard to identify. I am more concerned about IETF participants whose devices are not set up as dual stack nodes at all. They would be completely blocked. Yes, I know, such people should not exist, should be deeply ashamed, etc. But I don't see why we would cut them off to prove a point. Regards Brian On 25/01/2017 14:05, Franck Martin wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> >> To: "Franck Martin" <franck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "IETF" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 4:33:22 PM >> Subject: Re: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago > >> On 25/01/2017 12:11, Franck Martin wrote: >>> I think it is time to move to the next level of IPv6 deployment. >>> >>> Ideally the IETF WiFi network should now only provide the following 2 networks: >>> 1)IPv6-only >>> 2)IPv6-only with NAT64 >>> >>> The later should be the default network. >>> >>> However you would say, well some stuff will break, some non technical people >>> will use the IETF network and may have a bad experience, etc... >>> >>> So to be conservative but at the same time futurist and like it was done a few >>> years back, why not create again an IPv4 outage of a few hours where the above >>> 2 networks would be the only networks available? >> >> That would be a good way of damaging IETF productivity for a few hours. > > Do you have evidence of applications not running in a NAT64 environment? I'm interested to know them. > >> >> And for what? Moving away from the mainstream coexistence mechanism (dual >> stack), >> to a mechanism known to be intrinsically defective (NAT). I don't see the point. >> > > I fail to see how NAT is intrinsically defective, since it is used successfully by everyone... > > Nevertheless, the goal here is to get the Internet designers (IETF) to have operational experience on what needs to be fixed. > > When the IPv4 outage happened a few years back, it gave a serious impetus in getting IPv6 totally mainstream on many platforms. > > IAB encourages IPv6: https://www.iab.org/2016/11/07/iab-statement-on-ipv6/ > > However going IPv6-only can only be done in walled gardens. There still will be many environments with IPv4 only. A solution here is to move networks to NAT64, so you only need to support IPv4 at the edges... > > Yes creating an outage for the sake of an outage is pointless, experience on what works and not work needs to be recorded. > > May be the first step instead of doing an outage is to have as default a NAT64 network at IETF meetings and a dual stack network for the people that experience issues. > > >