On Dec 19, 2007, at 2:37 PM, Matt Mathis wrote:
Why not do this for the entire meeting ? In fact, why not do it
for the entire meeting even if there isn't a plenary outage ?
Good idea!, except perhaps 71 is too soon. How about the plenary
outage as planed for 71, and the entire IETF after
o: "IETF Announcement list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary
Dear Colleagues:
I had no idea that my previous announcement would generate such
meone else offers to insure v4
transit is still available.
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: Change the subject! RE: [IAOC] Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF
71 Ple
t! RE: [IAOC] Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for
IETF 71 Plenary
Asunto: Change the subject! RE: [IAOC] Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71
Plenary
Since we started this thread my wireless network has had outage after
outage. It cannot be a coincidence.
WiFi is great when it works, but debuging it is
turday, December 22, 2007 9:46 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [IAOC] Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russ
Congrats. The ripples from this are an
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], ietf@ietf.org
Subject: [IAOC] Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary
Dear Colleagues:
I had no idea that my previous announcement would generate such a long
stream of responses. The lively discussion has been surprising,
interesting, and also informative.
--On Saturday, 22 December, 2007 13:07 -0500 IETF Chair
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear Colleagues:
>
> I had no idea that my previous announcement would generate
> such a long stream of responses. The lively discussion has
> been surprising, interesting, and also informative. I need to
> s
ement list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], ietf@ietf.org
Subject: [IAOC] Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary
Dear Colleagues:
I had no idea that my previous announcement would generate such a long
stream of responses. The lively discussion has been surpris
Dear Colleagues:
I had no idea that my previous announcement would generate such a long
stream of responses. The lively discussion has been surprising,
interesting, and also informative. I need to share some history, some
plans, and some reactions to this lengthy discussion.
The IETF meeting ne
Just for clarification:
On Dec 22, 2007, at 1:33 AM, Franck Martin wrote:
David Conrad
indicated that IANA has received requests from four root server
operators, F, K, M, Y to add IPv6 addresses to the appropriate
files/databases to enable IPv6-only service for root name servers.
"Y" is, of co
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-18dec07.htm
*Discussion of Supporting IPv6 in the Root Server System *
Doug Brent set out some introductory comments regarding the issue and
information that had been provided to the Board. David Conrad
indi
At 4:03 PM -0800 12/21/07, David Morris wrote:
If the scheduled plenary 'presentation' is this experiment, then while it
might not be the best use of the time, it won't preempt other
presentations.
The IESG/IAOC meetings don't normally have "presentations" after the
first half hour, and those
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> > Among the many dummy things he mentions, this one is probably the best
> > :-) May be someone should tell him there are name resolution services
> > (and they existed even before the DNS)?
>
> But someone has to configure those things. That
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 1:30 PM -0800 12/21/07, David Morris wrote:
> >Actually, I think the stronger complaints are about the fact that a
> >meeting for another purpose ...
>
> "another purpose"? Those of us who were at the IESG/IAOC plenary 2.5
> weeks ago will remember t
At 1:30 PM -0800 12/21/07, David Morris wrote:
Actually, I think the stronger complaints are about the fact that a
meeting for another purpose ...
"another purpose"? Those of us who were at the IESG/IAOC plenary 2.5
weeks ago will remember that the vast majority of the mic time was to
discuss
Actually, I think the stronger complaints are about the fact that a
meeting for another purpose will be disrupted by the sub set of folks who
think they are obligated to try and get there lap top working because
there is a network experiment overlayed on the meeting. Plenaries are
already unwieldy
> Disrupting a meeting funded for a different purpose will/would be an
> offensive colossal waste of resources.
I think some disruption is in order.
The stronger argument I have heard against the proposed "IPv6 interlude" is
that it is not compatible with the services loaded on participants' lap
David,
On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 07:41:47AM -0800, David Morris wrote:
>
> The question here is not if we'll have a room full of competent engineer
> who might be able to solve any problems, the question for competent
> engineers is whether the proposed approach is effective use of very
> expensiv
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> Among the many dummy things he mentions, this one is probably the best
> :-) May be someone should tell him there are name resolution services
> (and they existed even before the DNS)?
But someone has to configure those things. That most likely
unfortunate occupants of
East Germany that they should get a Ferrari instead of a Trabant.
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 21/12/2007 3:50 AM
To: Peter Saint-Andre
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, David Kessens wrote:
> mothership doesn't have ipv6 vpn support (yet). This certainly hasn't
> stopped me from connecting back to the company that I work for and it
> should not stop any competent engineer.
The question here is not if we'll have a room full of competent eng
om an IETF oldie's
perspective... Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary
Are we the Internet Standardization Development Task Force? It seems by this
thread, many of us are afraid to do any engineering and just work on emails and
paper.
I don't know about others, but I always lik
Theodore Tso wrote:
So how about getting people to work together to document workarounds
on a wiki run by the IETF?
+1
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mai
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 11:30:54PM -0800, David Kessens wrote:
>
> No, I don't think I missed Phillip's point at all. Some engineers are
> apparently more creative than others in their ability to reach the
> mothership over an ipv6 only network despite the fact that the
> mothership doesn't have i
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 01:14:30PM -0700,
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 279 lines which said:
> This thread prompted me to ask one of my hosting providers about
> IPv6 support. I received the following long but entertaining reply,
It seems a good opportunity to consi
Fred,
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 04:16:22PM -0800, Fred Baker wrote:
>
> On Dec 18, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> >In the same way that there is a difference between a bricklayer and
> >an architect there is a difference between an engineer and a
> >network admin.
>
> On De
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are we the Internet Standardization Development Task Force? It seems by this thread, many of us are afraid to do any engineering and just work on emails and paper.
I don't know about others, but I always liked testing some new technology at IETF meetings, but that see
> "john" == john loughney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
john> Are we the Internet Standardization Development Task Force?
john> It seems by this thread, many of us are afraid to do any
john> engineering and just work on emails and paper.
I *knew* there was some reason I didn't lik
IETF Chair wrote:
> How dark is the IPv6 Internet? Let's find out.
This thread prompted me to ask one of my hosting providers about IPv6
support. I received the following long but entertaining reply, which I
am forwarding on as anonymous feedback from the trenches.
**
I always said that if
For a long time, there was a fair amount of multicast debugging and
deployment that was driven / accelerated / or took advantage of the
IETF meetings being multicast. (On that note I wish that there was
still at least some multicast video going out from the IETF, say of
the plenaries.) I al
Are we the Internet Standardization Development Task Force? It seems by this
thread, many of us are afraid to do any engineering and just work on emails and
paper.
I don't know about others, but I always liked testing some new technology at
IETF meetings, but that seems less common these days
Tony Hain wrote:
> 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 ac
At Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:19:03 -0800,
Tony Hain wrote:
>
> 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 hole
: 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]
Subject: Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary
"Tony" == Tony Hain <
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 08:21:04PM -0800, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> Rhetorical question.
>
> Does your vpn client policy file use dotted quads or a hostname?
>
> If you had access to a nat64 translator would your vpn client assuming
> it supports ipv6 cope?
Given that most VPN's generally work if th
Am 19.12.2007 um 21:56 schrieb Tony Hain:
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)
behav
Fred Baker wrote:
>
> On Dec 19, 2007, at 7:22 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
>
>> It the outage happens at the last plenary session then everyone will
>> have the whole week before the plenary to set up their laptop to IPv6
>
> the laptop is the trivial part. It is the supporting infrastructure at
>
Which is why I said get your corporation to support the experiment.
Will Cisco be visible on IPv6 only? Can you continue to work like
nothing happened?
Who else expect no problem during the experiment? Raise the hand ;)
Fred Baker wrote:
>
> On Dec 19, 2007, at 7:22 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
>
>>
On Dec 19, 2007, at 7:22 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
It the outage happens at the last plenary session then everyone will
have the whole week before the plenary to set up their laptop to IPv6
the laptop is the trivial part. It is the supporting infrastructure
at the home corporation that is an
It the outage happens at the last plenary session then everyone will
have the whole week before the plenary to set up their laptop to IPv6 as
IETF now has the 2 stacks on its network.
Reading the threads:
-David said there will be records in the root well before the event
-seems that jabber.i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 18, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
In the same way that there is a difference between a bricklayer and
an architect there is a difference between an engineer and a
network admin.
On Dec 19, 2007, at 8:07 AM, David Kessen
PM
To: 'Sam Hartman'
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'John C Klensin'; 'IETF Chair'; [EMAIL
PROTECTED]; 'Pete Resnick'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary
Sam Hartman wrote:
> I think that real ISPs will
> "Tony" == Tony Hain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tony> I am willing to conceded on the behave point because client
Tony> side actions really don't matter, but I want to see multiple
Tony> people running mta's and independent web servers on the
Tony> nat'd IETF network, with ac
Sam Hartman wrote:
> I think that real ISPs will ship NATs that comply with behave. If you
> think that address independent and endpoint independent mapping
> behavior with endpoint dependent filtering behavior counts as punching
> holes then I disagree with you.
Establishing persistent state on
EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Pete Resnick'; 'IETF Chair'; [EMAIL
PROTECTED]; 'John C Klensin'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary
Sam,
While I understand the virtue in behave-compatible nats, how realistic is it
to believe that any ser
Tony Hain wrote:
> Sam,
>
> While I understand the virtue in behave-compatible nats, how realistic is it
> to believe that any service provider is going to allow a consumer to
> directly signal their infrastructure? This assumption was the failing of
> RSVP as an endpoint qos tool.
>
>
(Here's
'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary
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
> "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
> "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
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
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
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
-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
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
>>>>> &
> 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
> "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
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
> 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
I also think that we must think positive about this.
We do need to try things out. I think we started our very first
experiments with Wireless LAN at IETF 46 in Washington (I am just trying
to find a museum to take the plug-in card Nortel sold(?) me that was
never any use afterwards (the old
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
Why not do this for the entire meeting ? In fact, why not do it for the
entire meeting even if there isn't a plenary outage ?
Good idea!, except perhaps 71 is too soon. How about the plenary
outage as planed for 71, and the entire IETF after that?
(Perhaps support IPv4 in the terminal room onl
's look at it from an IETF newbie's perspective...
Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary
Asunto: RE: Let's look at it from an IETF newbie's perspective...
Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary
What if someone took the initiative to organize a new "newbie
training&q
D]>
CC: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Conversación: Let's look at it from an IETF newbie's perspective... Re: IPv4
Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary
Asunto: RE: Let's look at it from an IETF newbie's perspective... Re: IPv4
Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenar
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Bob Braden wrote:
Here is my understanding:
1. The shortage of IPv4 addresses will increasingly cripple the
communication effectiveness of the Internet, either directly
or indirectly through ubiqitous NATting.
2. As a replacement for IPv4, IPv6 is the on
ct: Let's look at it from an IETF newbie's perspective... Re: IPv4
Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary
I have resisted adding anything to this debate about the IPv4 outage
because people have already stated many of the good points. I
particularly agreed with the points made that from a P
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,
Here is my understanding:
1. The shortage of IPv4 addresses will increasingly cripple the
communication effectiveness of the Internet, either directly
or indirectly through ubiqitous NATting.
2. As a replacement for IPv4, IPv6 is the only game in town. We did it.
3. Unless w
I have resisted adding anything to this debate about the IPv4 outage
because people have already stated many of the good points. I
particularly agreed with the points made that from a PR point-of-view
this was not a great idea.
Let me, though, add another perspective. What about all the
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
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, 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
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
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
> 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
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
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
> -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
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
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
>
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
; 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.
>
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
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
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
I agree with Leslie on this. It is important to approach this in the
right light. Not an interop event; that would be for the implementors of
the products. Not a demonstration that IPv4 is still required for most
things; we know that already. Not a one hour session where thousand
people try to inst
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
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
--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
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
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
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
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
I wonder if we could hive off a thread to focus
on some constructive possibilities of this opportunity?
E.g., sites known to support IPv6 access?
The background work here will clearly have to address
issues such as useful DNS resolution ( in the root
and/or server hacks), DHCPv6, etc, but as
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
> 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
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
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
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
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
> 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
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
