Re: IPv4 to IPv6 transition
On 6-okt-2007, at 7:00, Michel Py wrote: Think about the following: even if in 3 years 50% of hosts were IPv6-only capable, it would not diminish the need for IPv4. All the double-NAT tricks, unused address reclaim, config cleanup etc are going to happen now no matter what. I'm not saying it's going to be easy or cheap, but as long as there is a need for v4 it will happen. The unanswered question is: are all these tricks going to be enough to keep operating IPv4. Nobody knows, but almost everyone who already has a v4 address can wait. Well, if in the forseeable future (3 years is a bit short, though) 50% of all hosts has IPv6 connectivity, I would call that a resounding success. (I'll even take 25 or even 10 % or whatever is enough to make most ISPs deploy IPv6 in their networks.) That the other 50/75/90% is still IPv6-only wouldn't be a problem: presumably, IPv4 works for them so there is no need to add IPv6. The tricky part is what happens to people that run into limitations that exist in IPv4 but not in IPv6. (NAT, hard to get enough addresses, that kind of stuff.) So far, deploying IPv6 to work around these problems has rarely been a workable option. But hopefully, it will become one in the next few years. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Call for action vs. lost opportunity (Was: Re: Renumbering)
On 2007-10-05 09:12, Ralph Droms wrote: Typo: should read IPv6 ~= IPv4+more_bits... - Ralph On Oct 4, 2007, at Oct 4, 2007,4:52 AM, Ralph Droms wrote: Regarding transition: On Sep 14, 2007, at Sep 14, 2007,3:43 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: Unless I've missed something rather basic, in the case of IPv6, very little attention was paid to facilitating transition by maximizing interoperability with the IPv4 installed base. Dave, I have to agree with you in this regard. We may have achieved neither significant new capabilities because IPv6 ~= IPv6+more_bits, nor ease of transition because transition wasn't thoroughly evaluated early on in the design process... Ralph, that last assertion simply isn't true. Migration/transition/ co-existence was on the radar screen right from the start. The dual stack model was chosen explicitly to allow for co-existence, and in particular so that dual stack servers can serve both IPv4 and IPv6 clients, and that is running code. There's a fundamental difficulty in having IPvX-only clients working with IPvY-only servers except via application-level relays. It isn't a consequence of design details of v4 and v6. I'm sure we could have done better, but this was very definitely thought about. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Spammers answering TMDA Queries
On 2007-10-06 12:02, Ken Raeburn wrote: On Oct 5, 2007, at 17:00, Douglas Otis wrote: But what is it? A step beyond grey listing. "Beyond" implies "in vaguely the same direction". From skimming the TMDA description, I don't see that at all. In any case, the IETF config for TMDA is a white list only, as far as I know. All known subscribers to IETF lists are automaticaly white listed, and anyone else has to respond once to a challenge to become white listed. Mail from non-white listed senders goes into manual moderation. That's all. Not perfect, but it stops a heck of a lot of spam. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
IETF 71: Results of Social Venue Survey
I would like to thank all of you in the IETF community that participated in this survey. We were delighted that 245 people took the time to do so. We asked both about what people liked and disliked about IETF socials generally, as well as which of the two venues we narrowed our choices to they liked best (we of course visited/investigated many more). In terms of a venue, there was clearly more interest in the Philadelphia Museum of Art, and so we have selected this venue and are now working out all of the agreements to make this happen. PDFs of the raw survey results are available to anyone who wishes to view them. These may be particularly useful to future IETF meeting sponsors, and many of the comments are quite interesting. These can be found at http://ietf71.comcast.net/premtgsurvey/IETF71-SocialVenueSurvey.zip. Please note that we will be publishing more meeting & logistical info over time at http://ietf71.comcast.net (you can also set your RSS reader to http://ietf71.comcast.net/?feed=rss2 to pick up any changes automatically). Key survey findings: 1. Of the respondents, the large majority plan to attend IETF 71. a. 83%, or 204 people, plan to attend. b. 15%, or 38 people, are undecided. c. 1%, or 3 people, will not attend. 2. Of the respondents, many are undecided on whether they will attend the social and appear to decide whether to do so at each IETF meeting. a. 59%, or 143 people, sometimes attend depending on the individual event. b. 39%, or 94 people, always attend. c. 3%, or 6 people, never attend. d. 1 person would only attend if they event was certain to be IPv6-compliant. 3. The most important parts of attending a social event for attendees are: a. Meeting people / talking to people b. Good food c. Visiting an interesting venue d. Stuff to see / do e. Open bar 4. Of secondary importance for the event (less important than above): a. Music b. Affordability / value 5. The least important item for an event was music. 6. Respondents were from a range of geographic locations: a. U.S.: 55% b. Europe: 27% c. Asia: 7% d. U.K.: 4% e. Canada: 3% f. Middle East: 1% g. 2% lived "in the network," "on the moon," or in some other "secret" locale. Regards Jason Livingood > -Original Message- > From: Livingood, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 3:48 PM > To: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: IETF 71: Social Venue Survey > > Hello - > > I am on the planning team for the sponsoring organization of > IETF 71. We are continuing to get ready for this event. > > We would like to solicit the community's feedback on the > possible locations of the social venue and what is important > to you for such events. There are 6 questions, so it should > only take you a few minutes to complete. > > To take the survey, go to: > http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=hcr9IMRQmHOe74i_2bMChaOg_3d_3d > > Thank you in advance if you take the time to complete a survey. > > Regards > Jason Livingood > > PS - This survey will be open until September 5, 2007. > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
