I just realized something.
We have RFC6540 since 2012, which clearly express that we should not work in anything which is IPv4-only.
Should this document be applicable as well to our tools?
Shall we update it to clearly express that?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 22/4/20 0:47, "ietf en nombre de Fernando Frediani" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx en nombre de fhfrediani@xxxxxxxxx> escribió:
Hello all
Thanks for all inputs on this discussion, but I wanted to call attention
to the main topic of this thread which is the acceptance of IETF to work
with services that do not have IPv6 support in detriment to those who have.
I understand the feelings that may be around GitHub, in favor or against
it, but that main point is not really to discuss if it's a good or bad
tool. I just mentioned it because in this case in particular it had to
well known alternatives that support IPv6. If tomorrow GitHub does its
job to bring IPv6 support I personally don't have a problem in seeing
IETF using it.
There are other SaaS like WebEx that is widely used and doesn't have
IPv6 support as well. Does it have to be it ? Even if it's given for
free can't Management not find another solution and refuse it ?
That's what the discussion is about. Does it make sense IETF to accept
keep using *any* SaaS that do not support IPv6 in order to get things
done or could them be replaced and IETF can give the example ?
Fred - As far as I know Zoom does not support IPv6 either. I have just
opened a session here, captured traffic and it flows on IPv4-only. Zoom
is basically hosted in AWS which apart of having IPv6 support has also
so many development tools that don't support IPv6, so probably it's the
case. I have opened support requests to them to ask about and they never
responded unfortunately.
Best regards
Fernando
On 21/04/2020 19:12, Fred Baker wrote:
>
>> On Apr 19, 2020, at 1:19 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet=40consulintel.es@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> I must say that Webex was an emergency solution for the Covid-19 situation for an on-line meeting instead of the Vancouver one (our usual tool for that is Meetecho, but probably it was not obvious if it can support so many participants, and not designed for not having a "local" venue).
> I agree that the tools we use should be IPv6-capable. I'm doing work in ICANN and ITU, and by the way stay in touch with family using IP-based A/V. What I'm using is Zoom, which is IPv6-capable. They have had some widely-publicized security issues lately, which as near as I can tell are resolved if one places a password on a scheduled meeting, and possibly forces the moderator to manually accept each attendee on the assumption that they know them. There remain a couple of issues - limits on the number of attendees, and a 40 minute time limit. Both of those can be overcome at a cost of $12/month.
>
> I have never recorded a call, but I think it can be done.
>
> Zoom is IPv6-capable, and with a small amount of common sense the known issues can be overcome as far as I know. I'd be willing for my working group to use my zoom account for its meetings...
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
