Subject: Moving the ipng mailing list

From: Bob Hinden & Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 17:24:00 -0700

Folks,

After many years of service Sun Microsystems has indicated that they can no 
longer administer the ipng mailing list of the IPv6 working 
group.  Consequentially, we will be moving the list in next two or three 
weeks.  Sun will continue to manage the list through the transition.

We first want to thank the folks at Sun for keeping the list going and 
dealing with bounces, spam, and all of the other things that come up with a 
large public mailing list.  This has been an important contribution to the 
IPv6 working group and the IETF in general.  Thank you!!!

The current plan is to move the list to ietf.org.  Everyone currently 
subscribed to [email-masked] will be subscribed to the new 
list.  You will not have to subscribe to the new list if you are currently 
subscribed to the old one.  This should keep the disruption of moving to a 
minimum.

Once the new list is set up and announced as operational, we will ask Sun 
to setup a fixed error message in response to any posting to the old 
address saying the list has moved and ask the sender to resend the email to 
the new list address.

We need a volunteer to be the list owner to handle the bounces, SPAM, 
etc.  This is an important job.  If you are interested in doing this, 
please respond directly to the chairs and include any experience you have 
doing this for other lists.  Having a few people share this job would be fine.

One small point.  The list is currently named "ipng".  We could keep the 
name the same or change it to "ipv6" to be consistent with the current name 
of the working group.  Please let the chairs know if you have a strong 
preference one way or the other.

More news later as the details get worked out.

Thanks,

Bob Hinden and Margaret Wasserman
IPv6 w.g. chairs

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 20:05:18 +0900

Completely agree, even is time (overdue) to get ALL the IETF/ISOC related sites with IPv6 support !

Regards,
Jordi

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ronald van der Pol" <[email-masked]>
To: "Bob Hinden & Margaret Wasserman" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; "Margaret Wasserman" <[email-masked]>; "Alain Durand" <[email-masked]>; "John Beck"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: Moving the ipng mailing list

> On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 17:24:00 -0700, Bob Hinden & Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>
> > The current plan is to move the list to ietf.org.
>
> Can the list be moved to a server that supports IPv6 transport? E.g.,
> it looks like all the ops.ietf.org lists are delivered over IPv6 now.
>
> rvdp

*****************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on-line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 07:31:15 -0700

> it looks like all the ops.ietf.org lists are delivered over IPv6 now.

Are those the words of a volunteer?

Eliot

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 08:11:43 -0700

Ronald,

>it looks like all the ops.ietf.org lists are delivered over IPv6 now.

I agree that it would be good to have the list on a site that supports 
IPv6.  However, I think it would be even better to get ietf.org to add IPv6 
support so all IETF content and lists will be accessible with IPv6.

I periodically ask the IETF chair about this.  I suggest that anyone who 
thinks it is important for ietf.org to support IPv6 to send mail to the 
IETF chair.

Bob

---

From: "Eugene M. Kim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 10:10:11 -0700

IPv6 > IPng.  While IPv6 is still considered a new-generation protocol,
it'd be better to use the official name (i.e. the one by which 571531857
people know it).

Eugene

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 13:45:10 -0400

> IPv6.  However, I think it would be even better to get ietf.org to add
> IPv6 support so all IETF content and lists will be accessible with
> IPv6.
> 
> I periodically ask the IETF chair about this.  I suggest that anyone
> who thinks it is important for ietf.org to support IPv6 to send mail
> to the IETF chair.

I think it's not terribly important.  The principal value would be for
show, not for utility.  And IMHO it sends a misleading message.

It's unrealistic to think that everyone is going to move mail and web to
IPv6 anytime soon, and it's unrealistic to encourage people to move mail
and web to IPv6.    We should be concentrating on making IPv6 available
for new apps, not on trying to retro-fit the two apps with the largest
amount of IPv4 baggage.

Of course I have no objection to anyone, including ietf.org, using IPv6
for SMTP or HTTP.  I just think we're deluding ourselves if we pretend
this is important, or that having IETF do this is a constructive step
toward IPv6 deployment.

---

From: "Jeroen Massar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 20:43:28 +0200

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Keith Moore wrote:

<SNIP>
> show, not for utility.  And IMHO it sends a misleading message.

<SNIP> 

> Of course I have no objection to anyone, including ietf.org, 
> using IPv6 for SMTP or HTTP.  I just think we're deluding ourselves
> if we pretend this is important, or that having IETF do this is a
> constructive step toward IPv6 deployment.

"But mommy, if the geeks don't use it, they probably don't
want to rely on it either, so why should I ?"

IMHO it would be a very good step to IPv6 deployment.
I am also one of the few people who pester Google once
in a while asking them when they are going to support IPv6.
I didn't make http://ipv6gate.sixxs.net for nothing :)
Usage is one of the ways to discover the many problems
that might be there but which we might not notice.

I don't expect there being a killer app, the only current
killer app that could boost IPv6 is, sorry to say, but either
a IPv6 only peer-2-peer program for illegal music/video/* trading
or the ever money producing porn industry. A more legit
thing is IPv6 gaming, fortunatly Microsoft already came to
that conclusion with Xbox live and discovering that most users
are NAT'ted (result: Teredo and the P2P SDK) and Sony with
their PS2 is also checking out IPv6 for internet gaming.

So if it is at all possible for making something IPv6 capable
do so. RIPE for example got a big surprise when they activated
their whois service to do IPv6 and getting complaints that it
didn't work entirely as espected. The users are getting ready
but how are the servers doing ?

Greets,
 Jeroen

PS: Btw check my mailheaders, even Outlook can do IPv6 ;)

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 15:31:46 -0400

> want to rely on it either, so why should I ?"

I rely on IPv6 every single day, and I think I qualify as a geek.  That
doesn't mean I think it's a good idea to fragment the IPv4-based email
or web infrastructures. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Jeroen Massar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 21:40:38 +0200

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Keith Moore [mailto:[email-masked]] wrote:

> I rely on IPv6 every single day, and I think I qualify as a 
> geek.  That doesn't mean I think it's a good idea to fragment
> the IPv4-based email or web infrastructures. 

With fragmenting you imply IPv6 only ? That is not an option
ofcourse, all the work for transition wasn't done for nothing,
a mailserver can be dualstacked to serve both IPv6 capable and
IPv4 capable clients, even as a fallback. Putting the lists on
IPv6 only is a nogo, not now and not in ten years probably.
But having it available and using it per default over IPv6
is a good thing. If something is wrong in the path, users will
complain and as this is a list full of techs it will be fixed
too in a short amount of time. For smtp it is even better
as MX's can have fallbacks anyways:

example.net MX 10 mx.example.net
            MX 20 mx.ipv4.example.net

mx.example.net      AAAA 2001:db8::1
                    A    10.0.0.1
mx.ipv6.example.net AAAA 2001:db8::1
mx.ipv4.example.net A    10.0.0.1

This way there really is no way that the host can be missed
even if a AAAA in the DNS would confuse a smtp daemon, though
there are afaik no cases of that. If there where they would
simply need to fix these problems on their side.

A good example of something which was discovered merely by
plain usage was the broken DNS implementations that returned
NODATA when requesting an AAAA for a host but when they'd
actually did have a A for that hostname.

Usage is a good thing IMHO and if possible, make it so.

Greets,
 Jeroen

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 15:45:37 -0400

> With fragmenting you imply IPv6 only ?

no, I'm implying that some are running IPv6 only while others
are running IPv4 only, which further implies that there are hosts that
cannot communicate with one another.

as I said, I'm not against ietf.org supporting v6 SMTP.   I just don't
think it's important for them to do so.  

but neither is it worth taking up list bandwidth to hammer out exactly
why it is or isn't important.  I've made my point; you may now have the
last word.

Keith

---

From: "Jeroen Massar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 22:00:54 +0200

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

> cannot communicate with one another.

I don't think that there are actually people that are running IPv6
only especially concerning SMTP. As for SMTP one dualstacked box
solves that problem allowing them to communicate with both IPv6 only
hosts when you are in IPv4 land and vice versa. In that respect I
think there will be quite a long time before IPv4 will go away and
many of the transition mechanisms are here to stay for quite some time.

> why it is or isn't important.  I've made my point; you may now have the

Point taken and agreed, there are more important issues to be discussed.

Greets,
 Jeroen

---

From: Ronald van der Pol <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 22:37:34 +0200

> show, not for utility.  And IMHO it sends a misleading message.

Ah, got you :-) I receive my email at home by port forwarding SMTP
through a NAT box (email server behind a NAT home router). I prefer
to receive SMTP normally, without going through NAT. That's possible
when the mail is sent via IPv6 transport.

Are you really advising me to continue to use NAT :-)

	rvdp

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 08:11:43 -0700

Ronald,

Bob

---

From: Ronald van der Pol <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 12:44:27 +0200

rvdp