In message <212835829.114144965.1485306337275.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Franck Martin writes: > > ----- 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 netw > orks: > >> 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. Anything that really wants to know is AAAA records exist or not. You don't run NAT64 w/o DNS64 and that munges with DNS answers. Lots of what I do would break because of that. I need to know the truth, not the lies from DNS64. And yes I have written DNS64 code. > > 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... No one successfully uses NAT. They just put up with its limitations. There is a big difference. That said there will always be limitations delivering IPv4 going into the future. > Nevertheless, the goal here is to get the Internet designers (IETF) to > have operational experience on what needs to be fixed. Step 1. Stop saying to use NAT64. There are other ways to provide IPv4 as as a service with IPv6 only all the way to the node. > 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... No. The goal is IPv6-only access networks with IPv4 as service, then IPv6-only within the home / enterprise with IPv4 as a service. Note this doesn't specify a solution. > 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 NAT6 4 network at IETF meetings and a dual stack network for the people > that experience issues. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@xxxxxxx