> 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?
We are 20+ years in.
If we (as the collective we) believed in this transition shouldn't the next step be to remove the A records from {mail,datatracker,www}.ietf.org? And add a piece of Javascript blocking any client coming through a translator from v4.
I would expect ridicule from such a proposal.
Our tools including our collboration tools are centralized, they don't benefit much from IPv6 and end to end transparency either.
Best regards,
Ole
> 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.
>
>
>
