On 8/14/17, 11:09 AM, "ietf on behalf of John Curran" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of jcurran@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On 31 Jul 2017, at 8:10 PM, Randy Bush <randy@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> ... >> >To that end, would it be possible for those behind the "IPv6-only Wi-Fi >for IETF” >draft to partner with the NOC at the upcoming meeting to help debug >issues that >are reported on “ietf-nat64* and publish the results? The IETF does have >a wide >variety of users, which is really helpful in finding edge cases with >protocols that >might have issues and otherwise go undiscovered. If it were may clear >(e.g. during >the opening) that there is a goal to put the “ietf-nat64” network through >its paces >and that there would be a post-mortem I-D as a result, I suspect quite a >few folks >would at least give that setup a try for a while, with the goal of >finding and reporting >breakage. As promised, I have proposed an "IPv4-IPv6 Transition Technology Interop” for the IETF100 Hackathon: Description at: https://www.ietf.org/registration/MeetingWiki/wiki/100hackathon Discussion/planning list: http://lists.retevia.net/listinfo.cgi/v6-interop-retevia.net Hackathon registration and mailing list at https://www.ietf.org/hackathon/100-hackathon.html I have two versions of NAT64 planned (A10, VPP). I would like to compare to at least 464xlat (probably with CLAT on gateway, not device) to address some of the comments in the thread. I’d also like to compare other transition technologies, such as DS-Lite and MAP-T/MAP-E, though these are probably more interesting to the rest of the Internet than to the narrow question of what the IETF should do. All of that, of course, is subject to people wanting to do it, and proper planning ahead of time. Lee