Dear Colleagues:
How dark is the IPv6 Internet? Let's find out.
During the IESG/IAOC Plenary at IETF 71, we are going to turn off IPv4
support on the IETF network for 30 to 60 minutes. We will encourage the
audience to use the Internet and determine which services that they have
come to take fo
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 04:39:10PM -0500,
IETF Chair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 29 lines which said:
> During the IESG/IAOC Plenary at IETF 71, we are going to turn off
> IPv4 support on the IETF network for 30 to 60 minutes. We will
> encourage the audience to use the Internet and
> Dear Colleagues:
>
> How dark is the IPv6 Internet? Let's find out.
>
> During the IESG/IAOC Plenary at IETF 71, we are going to turn off IPv4
> support on the IETF network for 30 to 60 minutes. We will encourage the
> audience to use the Internet and determine which services that they have
IETF Chair wrote:
> Dear Colleagues:
>
> How dark is the IPv6 Internet? Let's find out.
>
> During the IESG/IAOC Plenary at IETF 71, we are going to turn off IPv4
> support on the IETF network for 30 to 60 minutes. We will encourage the
> audience to use the Internet and determine which service
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 08:54:01AM +1100,
Mark Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 89 lines which said:
> Step one fix the root.
Yes, we won't go very far without it. Although there is a process to
add to root-servers.net:
http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac016.
Experiment has already been done:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/cerezo-ipv6-in.pdf
will you also turn off IPv4 in the hotel net? Where is the closest *$?
On 14 Dec 2007, at 22:39, IETF Chair wrote:
Dear Colleagues:
How dark is the IPv6 Internet? Let's find out.
Dur
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 04:39:10PM -0500,
> IETF Chair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> a message of 29 lines which said:
>
> > During the IESG/IAOC Plenary at IETF 71, we are going to turn off
> > IPv4 support on the IETF network for 30 to 60 minutes. We will
> > encourage the audience to use t
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Mark Andrews wrote:
To facilitate this experiment, a URL with instructions on how to get IPv6
running on Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, and so on. Some information will
also be available for a 4-to-6 tunnel.
...
Step one fix the root.
That's going to be a terriby usef
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 04:39:10PM -0500,
> IETF Chair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> a message of 29 lines which said:
>
>> During the IESG/IAOC Plenary at IETF 71, we are going to turn off
>> IPv4 support on the IETF network for 30 to 60 minutes. We will
>> encourag
At 3:30 PM -0800 12/14/07, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
you could add some glue to your named.root which in any event I'd
do if I were running a recursive nameserver with only v6 transit.
The original message said:
At 4:39 PM -0500 12/14/07, IETF Chair wrote:
We will encourage the
audience to use
At 17:07 -0800 12/14/07, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Maybe reports of "the DNS is broken when you do go to pure IPv6" are
more valuable than "you can only go to IPv6 if you jump through these
hoops that only advanced Internet users can do".
Is the IETF afraid to eat it's own food?
Or is it willing to
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 08:54:01AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > We will make more information about the structuring of this activity over
> > the next few weeks. Please do whatever you can to make ready ...
> >
> > Russ Housley
> > IETF Chair
> >
> >
Bill Manning wrote:
> The IETF can do that?
Just have Bill jack it again...
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 06:32:26PM -0800, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> Bill Manning wrote:
>
> > The IETF can do that?
>
> Just have Bill jack it again...
>
again? i never (well not publically)
--
--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certa
> >Maybe reports of "the DNS is broken when you do go to pure IPv6" are
> >more valuable than "you can only go to IPv6 if you jump through these
> >hoops that only advanced Internet users can do".
>
> Is the IETF afraid to eat it's own food?
> Or is it willing to do what's necessary (in the interim
In your previous mail you wrote:
Maybe reports of "the DNS is broken when you do go to pure IPv6"
=> it could be only if the solution was not known: it is enough to
set up a recursive dual-stack DNS server (with an access list to serve only
the local IPv6 as recursive servers are too easy to
On 15 Dec, Mark Andrews wrote:
|
[...]
|
| Step one fix the root.
==> To continue with the template above in the same spirit:
Step two: determine how laptops in the pleanary meeting room will
be fed with the IPv6-only address of the appropriate recursive name server
(eg. /etc/resolv.co
What's the worst that can happen - we have to listen to the plenary
speakers without jabber sessions?
That would be pretty major!
We have had PWE3 contributors who were unable to be present in the
meeting, listen on audio and use IM for questions.
Lets do the experiment, but lets not r
At 22:58 -0800 12/14/07, Christian Huitema wrote:
>Maybe reports of "the DNS is broken when you do go to pure IPv6" are
>more valuable than "you can only go to IPv6 if you jump through these
>hoops that only advanced Internet users can do".
Is the IETF afraid to eat it's own food?
Or is it
On Dec 15, 2007, at 9:59 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
What's the worst that can happen - we have to listen to the
plenary speakers without jabber sessions?
That would be pretty major!
We have had PWE3 contributors who were unable to be present in the
meeting, listen on audio and use IM
(Someone said)
Lets do the experiment, but lets not run it in prime time until we know
how it will impact productivity.
Note that the experiment has been done already a couple of times. At a
couple of IETF meetings the IPv4 connections went down, but I could
connect back home with IPv6.
On Dec 15, 2007, at 6:59 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
What's the worst that can happen - we have to listen to the
plenary speakers without jabber sessions?
That would be pretty major!
We have had PWE3 contributors who were unable to be present in the
meeting, listen on audio and use IM
> During the IESG/IAOC Plenary at IETF 71, we are going to turn off IPv4
support on the IETF network
> for 30 to 60 minutes. We will encourage the audience to use the
Internet and determine which services
> that they have come to take for granted remain available.
Is there an assumption here
Umm, maybe someone needs to explain to you the existence of the
"bad-attitude" jabber room. Some of us are silently wondering if this
may be the one plenary where "Bar BOF" takes on a new meaning. Perhaps
we could have the proceedings projected on a giant sports-bar-like
screen and "jabber" away
On 15 dec 2007, at 16:14, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Lets do the experiment, but lets not run it in prime time until we
know how it will impact productivity.
How do you know that until you try?
I would argue that the plenary sessions are not prime time network
usage hours.
An obvious idea w
Yaakov Stein wrote:
Why don't we dedicate a separate 2 hour plenary just to this experiment
with the moderator announcing workarounds and collected statistics ?
That's not a plenary.
That's an interoperability event.
The IETF doesn't do those...
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg Internet
At 7:56 AM -0800 12/16/07, Dave Crocker wrote:
Yaakov Stein wrote:
Why don't we dedicate a separate 2 hour plenary just to this
experiment with the moderator announcing workarounds and collected
statistics ?
That's not a plenary.
That's an interoperability event.
Not at all: it is an opera
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 7:56 AM -0800 12/16/07, Dave Crocker wrote:
That's an interoperability event.
Not at all: it is an operations experiment. The (probably valid)
assumption is that if people can get their systems set up correctly,
there will be good interoperability once bits are flowi
That's not a plenary.
That's an interoperability event.
The IETF doesn't do those...
Dave,
Why not? The IETF can do anything it decides to do. And it would seem
that circumstances of IPv6 might strongly favor the utility of such a
large-scale
bak#-of# in the IETF.
Bob Braden
d/
--
Having the IETF see first-hand the operational aspects of its protocols
would probably have a positive effects on the protocols it produces.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
+1
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.
Bob Braden wrote:
That's not a plenary.
That's an interoperability event.
The IETF doesn't do those...
Dave,
Why not? The IETF can do anything it decides to do.
In that case, let's work on world peace. More important.
Closer to home, let's start specifying standardized user interf
On the other hand: If we simply closed our laptops for the duration of
the plenary and LISTENED to the speakers, perhaps even taking notes on
paper (I know, a radical idea), would this really be such a terrible
thing?
I've attended meetings where we had a "closed laptop" policy during
presentat
pe, 2007-12-14 kello 20:20 -0500, ext Edward Lewis kirjoitti:
> What's the worst that can happen - we have to listen to the plenary
> speakers without jabber sessions?
Then again, there is XEP-0174.
Cheers,
Aki
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
ht
Closer to home, let's start specifying standardized user interface details
for Internet applications.
Dave,
I think that we should tap expertise and enthusiasm where we find it
concentrated.
Can you say, "Make IETF fun again"? ;-)
Going beyond it might be fine, but only with due deli
At 12:15 PM -0800 12/16/07, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
On the other hand: If we simply closed our laptops for the duration of
the plenary and LISTENED to the speakers, perhaps even taking notes on
paper (I know, a radical idea), would this really be such a terrible
thing?
The original message said:
D
On 16 dec 2007, at 15.15, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
I've attended meetings where we had a "closed laptop" policy during
presentations,
i find those authoritarian and repressive. unless there is complete
unanimity in the room for such a policy it is a very bad idea.
incidentally, i always feel
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 08:48:38AM -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 7:56 AM -0800 12/16/07, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >Yaakov Stein wrote:
> >>Why don't we dedicate a separate 2 hour plenary just to this
> >>experiment with the moderator announcing workarounds and collected
> >>statistics ?
> >
> >Tha
As a poor sod who is still running Win2K Pro on his laptop, I hope that
these helpful hints will provide (different) instructions for the
Windows variants: Win2K, XP, and Vista. (This assumes, of course, that
Win2K is capable of running IPv6 at all, which I am not sure of, having
never tried i
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 03:30:09PM -0800,
Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 29 lines which said:
> you could add some glue to your named.root
I'm not sure it will be kept by the resolver after the priming process
is complete.
And it will not help with v4 only domains s
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 08:20:18PM -0500,
Edward Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 27 lines which said:
> Is the IETF afraid to eat it's own food?
...
> This outage should be done.
I suggest a more radical experiment. We should all run a DNSSEC-aware
resolver on our laptops with a
Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But what about transition mechanisms, or would that be unfair?
IMO it would be unfair on IPv6 to do the test without setting up
transition mechanisms similar to what an ISP would supply when
trying to sell IPv6-only internet connectivity (in the s
a University, Department of Computer Science and
> Software Engineering
> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:00:06 -0500
> Para:
> Asunto: Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary
>
> As a poor sod who is still running Win2K Pro on his laptop,
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
You can use IPv6 in w2k, I used it during several years and had no major
issues.
Detailed instructions for all the platforms available at:
http://www.ipv6tf.org/index.php?page=using/connectivity/guides
Thanks for sending that.
Unfortunately, the instructions for
> "Norbert" == Norbert Bollow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Norbert> Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But what about transition mechanisms, or would that be unfair?
Norbert> IMO it would be unfair on IPv6 to do the test without
We should provide transition mechani
Seems to me we need ensure some formality in the experiment if we
expect to get anything out of it. Asking everyone to send in notes
from their experience won't be enough - especially, as some have
predicted, if many participants get exactly 0% Internet connectivity
while IPv4 is off.
So
Stephane:
That is an interesting idea. I'd like to do that at some point, but
not at the same time as this experiment.
Russ
At 03:27 AM 12/17/2007, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
I suggest a more radical experiment. We should all run a DNSSEC-aware
resolver on our laptops with a policy of "acce
Bill Manning wrote:
> Paul Hoffman wrote:
> > Dave Crocker wrote:
> > >Yaakov Stein wrote:
> > >>Why don't we dedicate a separate 2 hour plenary just to this
> > >>experiment with the moderator announcing workarounds and collected
> > >>statistics ?
> > >The IETF doesn't do those...
> > ...but sh
> Organización: Brandenburg InternetWorking
> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 07:36:59 -0800
> Para: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC:
> Asunto: Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary
>
>
>
> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> You can us
Sam Hartman wrote:
So far I think we want to recommend dual stack. So, we need to think
about this outage more as a way to get ourselves experience with IPV6,
not as a network configuration anyone should be expected to use on a
regular basis.
As a simple model, let's assume 4 administration
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
I'm not sure to understand what is the problem. This has been used by tons
of people !
The problem is that I am but a lowly user, trying to follow the instructions
provided by Microsoft, and they don't work. I am therefore asking for
alternative instructions th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
what leads you to believe that the IETF doesn't do interoperability
events? It has done quite a few, notably in DHCPv6 immediately
following the recent IETF and going back in various working groups as
far as I can remember.
On Dec 16, 2007, at
orking
> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:02:01 -0800
> Para: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC:
> Asunto: Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary
>
>
>
> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> I'm not sure to understand what i
On 17 dec 2007, at 17:07, Dave Crocker wrote:
As a simple model, let's assume 4 administrations are in the
critical path:
1. Participant's laptop
2. IETF network ops
3. Collection of backbone operators
4. Participant's service provider
Each of these must support v6, for true dual stack to
Fred - to be clear, that DHCPv6 interop testing was not associated in
any way with the dhc WG. I'll let the organizers comment on any more
general sponsorship arrangement or other association of the event with
the IETF.
- Ralph
On Dec 17, 2007, at Dec 17, 2007,12:23 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
am Hartman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon 17/12/2007 10:47 AM
To: Norbert Bollow
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary
>>>>> "Norbert" == Norbert Bollow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Norbert> Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROT
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> There is no shortage of address space in net 10. There will always be
> plenty of IPV4 address space for people to run private networks to
> laptops and the like behind a NAT.
Given how much business we have selling nat boxes that can deal with the
same ip on both s
> On the other hand: If we simply closed our laptops for the duration of
> the plenary and LISTENED to the speakers, perhaps even taking notes on
> paper (I know, a radical idea), would this really be such a terrible
> thing?
That's exactly what it would be: A terrible thing.
I routinely use my l
> The only thing that looks plausible is "Microsoft TCP/IP version 6".
Tha's what I used, and I can now ping with IPv6.
I too wondered which of the three - TCP, IP or Microsoft - was version
6.
Y(J)S
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www
Ned Freed wrote:
> I was unable to attend the last three IETFs in person so maybe something has
> changed, but at previous meetings my success rate at keeping a wireless
> connection going during the plenary hasn't been all that great. This means
> IPv6 issues are likely going to be conflated with
Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Norbert" == Norbert Bollow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Norbert> Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> But what about transition mechanisms, or would that be unfair?
>
> Norbert> IMO it would be unfair on IPv6 to do the
Phillip Hallam-Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> what is proposed here is more of the nature of a PR stunt, a proof
> of concept than a test of a transition strategy.
I agree that it cannot be a true "test of a transition strategy" since
the main problem with any transition strategy is the meach
On 18 dec 2007, at 3:12, Ned Freed wrote:
Getting back to the actual topic under discussion, let me see if
I've got this
straight: We're going to switch off the IPv4 network and force
people to use
IPv6 during a plenary, a time when laptops are at maximum density
and hence
wireless connect
> How dark is the IPv6 Internet? Let's find out.
>
> During the IESG/IAOC Plenary at IETF 71, we are going to turn off IPv4
> support on the IETF network for 30 to 60 minutes. We will encourage the
> audience to use the Internet and determine which services that they have
> come to take for gran
Eric Rescorla wrote:
How dark is the IPv6 Internet? Let's find out.
...
This "experiment", strikes me as both pointless and harmful.
First, as was stated several times during the YVR plenary,
"transition" is not a plausible objective in anything like the near
future.
...
Moreover, it see
Dave Crocker wrote:
> pps. As an exercise, this could be interesting, for recruiting IETF
> community participation. A multi-organization, cross-net effort to make
> IPv6 useful will permit cataloguing what works, what doesn't, and what
> is entirely missing. The problems with the current plan ar
On Dec 18, 2007, at 9:29 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
While I think the original idea of doing this during a plenary is
fine, doing it in the meeting areas on Tuesday evening does sound
like a better option. Awarding success with real beer at the social
iff you can print the coupon would mo
Douglas Otis wrote:
>
> On Dec 18, 2007, at 9:29 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>
>> While I think the original idea of doing this during a plenary is
>> fine, doing it in the meeting areas on Tuesday evening does sound like
>> a better option. Awarding success with real beer at the social iff you
We've got to be close to a hijacked thread here, I think... engineers will
debug anything!
Spencer
While I think the original idea of doing this during a plenary is
fine, doing it in the meeting areas on Tuesday evening does sound like
a better option. Awarding success with real beer at the so
--On Tuesday, 18 December, 2007 09:17 -0800 Dave Crocker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> P.S. I don't really understand how you envision this working.
>> Are you thinking that people will be speaking during this
>> period? It's hard to imagine anything more disruptive to
>> having a plenary presen
On 12/18/07 at 1:32 PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
Reporters come to our meetings and attend plenaries.
There are members of the reporter community, or their editors,
who like only those stories that they can sensationalize. For
them, this little "outage" results in one of two possible
headli
rom: Pete Resnick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 18/12/2007 2:04 PM
To: John C Klensin
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary
On 12/18/07 at 1:32 PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
>Reporters come to our m
John,
While I agree with many of your comments, I wanted to touch on this:
> Now we also know that skilled engineers and network operators
> are capable of configuring their way around those problems.
> ... Inviting the rest of the community to try to
> sort things out in real-time in the plenar
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 01:32:00PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
> (1) The only thing this exercise, as described, is going to
> prove is that we are skilled at shooting ourselves in the foot.
> We already know that, at least in the US, IPv6 is insufficiently
> deployed to provide a good base for co
Yes!
john
--On Tuesday, 18 December, 2007 14:43 -0500 Theodore Tso
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let me suggest another approach. Don't do this at the next
> IETF meeting, but make an announcement that at some near-term
> IETF meeting, the only internet services provided at the IETF
> meetin
; ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary
John,
While I agree with many of your comments, I wanted to touch on this:
> Now we also know that skilled engineers and network operators
> are capable of configuring their way around those problems.
>
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 01:04:52PM -0600, Pete Resnick wrote:
>
> "Proposal that the IETF use IPv6 exclusively for 60 minutes causes
> widespread panic"
I would also like to observe that the people who seem to be suffering
from said wide spread panic have managed to produce enough mail to
waste
ti, 2007-12-18 kello 12:39 -0800, ext Hallam-Baker, Phillip kirjoitti:
> Run a split network:
>
> IPv4 behind a honking great NAT
> IPv6 with external routable IP address
>
> Then attendees have a choice of challenges:
>
> 1) Make the applications you need all work from behind an IPv4 NAT
>
I like the idea of ssid "ietf*" being NAT'd IPv4 + IPv6.
Having ssid "v4-ietf*" which requires the attendee's to
report (web page) why they choose this ssid before the
packets are allowed to flow.
Request, but don't demand product information, remote
> -Original Message-
> From: David Kessens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 3:40 PM
> To: Pete Resnick; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary
> Quite frankly, I cou
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/121707-how-feds-are-dropping-the-ball-side-1.html
Seems to me IETF71 will be very close to the US deadline:
"*U.S. federal agencies must meet a mandate to be capable of supporting
IPv6 on their backbone networks by June 2008. But carriers tell me that
only 10
On Dec 18, 2007, at 10:32 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, 18 December, 2007 09:17 -0800 Dave Crocker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
P.S. I don't really understand how you envision this working.
Are you thinking that people will be speaking during this
period? It's hard to imagine anythi
> Yes, right now IPv6 deployment isn't good enough that we
> can't do this without using all sorts of workarounds. OK,
> let's document those workarounds and make them available to
> the attendees. If it means that the IETF network provider
> has to hijack the root, then let them hijack the
At Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:39:32 -0800,
David Kessens wrote:
> Basically, anybody who cannot survive without 60 minutes of network
> connectivity during an IETF and who has not taken measures to provide
> for backup connectivity during *any* outage cannot be taken serious.
Of course one can survive 60
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 07:30:31AM -0800, ext Eric Rescorla wrote:
> At Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:39:32 -0800, David Kessens wrote:
> > Basically, anybody who cannot survive without 60 minutes of network
> > connectivity during an IETF and who has not taken measures to provide
> > for backup connectivit
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, David Kessens wrote:
> PS If there is a need for hammers in order to break fingers or to
>make ipv6 working, I suspect one can easily borrow one from the
>construction crews
> ---
OK, since we're so close to the holidays and so far off topic already:
Clearly you've n
At Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:07:10 -0800,
David Kessens wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 07:30:31AM -0800, ext Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > At Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:39:32 -0800, David Kessens wrote:
> > > Basically, anybody who cannot survive without 60 minutes of network
> > > connectivity during an IET
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 08:17:17AM -0800, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
> Absolutely they have, but I don't see why we should be put into a
> situation where I need to have "survival tools". Again, what is
> the value of this experiment?
>
> Since I seem to be into analogies this morning, let me try an
On 19 dec 2007, at 17:17, Eric Rescorla wrote:
Again, what is the value of this experiment?
The value is that it exposes IETF-goers who don't normally run IPv6-
only to this type of network configuration. At the very least this
forces people to formulate their objections to this treatment,
Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 12/18/07 at 1:32 PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> >Reporters come to our meetings and attend plenaries.
> >There are members of the reporter community, or their editors,
> >who like only those stories that they can sensationalize. For
> >them, this little "outage" res
> And on another topic, I would hope that (members of) the IAB will
> spend the same amount of time and energy as used on this discussion
Amen, but lets make that apply to the rest of us too.
> on
> more important topics like to get ICANN to have ipv6 and DNSSEC root
> service available before
On Dec 19, 2007, at 11:39 AM, Tony Hain wrote:
If we could only get the IESG
to get serious about killing off working groups that are still
focused on
IPv4 ... ;)
Suggestions of WGs?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mail
> "Tony" == Tony Hain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tony> the right experiment. It is not right because it does
Tony> nothing positive, other than the threat -maybe- spurring
Tony> some action. A more realistic experiment would be to run the
Tony> entire week with a double-nat fo
> Suggestions of WGs?
mipv4
mipshop
netconf (should be high level, but ID examples are all IPV4)
nea (should be agnostic, but clearly has the IPv4 mindset of a single
address/interface)
syslog (should be high level, but ID examples are all IPV4)
behave
midcom
nsis (because most of the group is
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 19/12/2007 3:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Pete Resnick'; 'IETF Chair'; [EMAIL
PROTECTED]; 'John C Klensin'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary
>>>>> &
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
With all due respect, firewall traversal and protocol translation
look like they are going to be interesting/important topics, at least
in the near term. You might consider Alain's slides from v6ops/nanog
in that regard. Closing an application w
age-
> From: Sam Hartman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 12:19 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: 'IETF Chair'; ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'John C Klensin';
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Pete Resnick'; [EMAIL PROTECTED
What Fred said. Also, MIPSHOP is not for IPv4. Just the first line of
the charter mentions IPv6 twice.
Jari
Fred Baker wrote:
> With all due respect, firewall traversal and protocol translation look
> like they are going to be interesting/important topics, at least in
> the near term. You might c
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> The double NAT approach is much closer to what the actual
> transition is going to look like. The only difference is that
> I think we might just be able to work out a viable means of
> punching holes so that video-conferencing works if we actually
> set our minds
> "Tony" == Tony Hain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tony> Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
>> The double NAT approach is much closer to what the actual
>> transition is going to look like. The only difference is that I
>> think we might just be able to work out a viable means of
> "Tony" == Tony Hain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tony> Sam, While I understand the virtue in behave-compatible
Tony> nats, how realistic is it to believe that any service
Tony> provider is going to allow a consumer to directly signal
Tony> their infrastructure?
The behave do
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
