Re: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago

> On Jan 24, 2017, at 8:05 PM, Franck Martin 
> <franck(_at_)peachymango(_dot_)org> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Brian E Carpenter" 
> > <brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
> > To: "Franck Martin" <franck(_at_)peachymango(_dot_)org>, "IETF" 
> > <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 4:33:22 PM
> > Subject: Re: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago
> > > On 25/01/2017 12:11, Franck Martin wrote:
> > > I think it is time to move to the next level of IPv6 deployment.
> > >
> > > Ideally the IETF WiFi network should now only provide the following 2 
> > > networks:
> > > 1)IPv6-only
> > > 2)IPv6-only with NAT64
> > >
> > > The later should be the default network.
> > >
> > > However you would say, well some stuff will break, some non technical people
> > > will use the IETF network and may have a bad experience, etc...
> > >
> > > So to be conservative but at the same time futurist and like it was done a 
> > > few
> > > years back, why not create again an IPv4 outage of a few hours where the 
> > > above
> > > 2 networks would be the only networks available?
> > That would be a good way of damaging IETF productivity for a few hours.
> Do you have evidence of applications not running in a NAT64 environment? I'm 
> interested to know them.
> >
AFS

The afs location service returns explicit IPv4 addresses for volume locations 
not names to be looked up via DNS.

Jeffrey Altman

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature