Hi, There are many issues intertwined here. I think there are three of particular interest: 1. Which technology the ‘ietf’ SSID offers, as the ‘default’. There’s some emotive language being used here, but ultimately the decision will not prevent anyone getting work done, so long as one production quality SSID can be selected. What the decision does affect is the volume of data we obtain on the operation of NAT64/DNS64/464XLAT at the meeting. At IETF99, Randy’s data reported 1,380 ietf SSID users, and 166 ietf-nat64 SSID users, as of Tuesday morning. And around 1,900 users with a device on a different SSID to those two. So as it stands, around 5% of device associations are to the NAT64 network. Would we like to raise the number of devices using the NAT64 network? If so, how, if not running the ietf SSD with it? 2. Whether we fully understand how devices of various common OSes select an SSID on startup, without manual intervention. The line in Randy’s data that puzzled me was the 967 devices associating to the ietf-legacy99 SSID. I believe the SSID had the meeting number appended to avoid devices just re-associating to an ‘ietf-legacy’ SSID every meeting. By adding the number, one might hope users would have to manually select the SSID. But perhaps at least one major OS prefers this SSID because of its open property? Understanding an OS’s SSID selection behaviour is important if we’re concerned about people having to manually set the production quality SSID, and to know that they won’t drift back to an undesired SSID while working or on a network (re)attachment. 3. How we capture and report the experiences of users / devices running NAT64/DNS64/464XLAT. Christian said: > So if the purpose of "eating our own dogfood" is to find out bugs and > breakage, here is a clear finding: IPv6 only networks do not provide > access to IPv4 only services today. NAT64 networks seem to work, but we > suspect that there are some drawbacks, such as messing up with DNSSEC, > and maybe also interfering with some P2P services. A fair 10,000’ summary, probably. But what empirical evidence do we have? What data are we able to gather at an IETF meeting on the success or failures of NAT/64/DNS64 (and 464XLAT where also used), whether we have 166 devices on the NAT64 SSID, or 1,166 devices? And how can this data be publicly reported for everyone to learn and benefit from? Tim