On 29/07/2017 13:46, Randy Bush wrote:
...
> getting problems with nat64 identified, diagnosed, and fixed (or worked
> around, sigh) is in the ietf's and the public's interest.
Sure. But dual stack operation is *not* the poor cousin. IMNSHO,
ipv6-only-with-NAT64-with-DNS64 is the poor cousin.
As a compromise, could we have:
1) *No* SSID called "ietf".
2) A secured SSID called "ietf-dual" for the dual stack service.
3) A secured SSID called "ietf-ipv6" for the ipv6+NAT64 service.
4) An insecure "ietf-legacy" that is a dual stack service.
5) The best you can manage for "ietf-hotel", preferably dual stack.
Brian