> On Jan 24, 2017, at 8:05 PM, Franck Martin <franck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. >> AFS The afs location service returns explicit IPv4 addresses for volume locations not names to be looked up via DNS. Jeffrey Altman
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>