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 at least another 60 minutes of work time of everybody subscribed
to this mailing list.
Quite frankly, I could care less about this whole experiment: I have
no problems tunneling all my traffic back home over ipv6. I don't even
rely on relatively modern innovations like the DNS. I also have a
backup plan in the form of several mobile phone devices and hotspot
subscriptions that are able to attach me to the legacy network as well.
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.
We have had plenty of outages in the past that have lasted longer than
60 minutes that sometimes involved the whole network being down but at
other times involved infrastructure outages that caused ipv4 to be
down and ipv6 being up or the other way around.
I would like to suggest that people who really cannot do without 60
minutes of connectivity spend some time in actually investigating what
kind of alternate methods of connectivity are available in case of a
network outage as that might come in handy during other unscheduled
network events as well. The network might have been working well last
time, but that doesn't mean that past performance gives any guaratees
for the future. One of the cheapest preparations and one that would
have saved you already way more than 60 minutes of extra connectivity
time is to make sure you can use ipv6 as backup for ipv4 and vice versa.
David Kessens
---
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf