Subject: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary

From: IETF Chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:39:10 -0500

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 for granted remain available.

If you are from a service provider, we encourage you to make your service
a bright spot on the IPv6 Internet.

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.

We will ask everyone to list things that work and things that do not. The
results will be part of the proceedings for the plenary session.

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

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:54:01 +1100

> the next few weeks.  Please do whatever you can to make ready ...

	Step one fix the root.

; <<>> DiG 9.3.4-P1 <<>> ns . @a.root-servers.net +dnssec
; (1 server found)
;; global options:  printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 37803
;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 13, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 14

;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags: do; udp: 4096
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;.				IN	NS

;; ANSWER SECTION:
.			518400	IN	NS	D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.			518400	IN	NS	E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.			518400	IN	NS	F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.			518400	IN	NS	G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.			518400	IN	NS	H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.			518400	IN	NS	I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.			518400	IN	NS	J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.			518400	IN	NS	K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.			518400	IN	NS	L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.			518400	IN	NS	M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.			518400	IN	NS	A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.			518400	IN	NS	B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.			518400	IN	NS	C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.	3600000	IN	A	198.41.0.4
B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.	3600000	IN	A	192.228.79.201
C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.	3600000	IN	A	192.33.4.12
D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.	3600000	IN	A	128.8.10.90
E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.	3600000	IN	A	192.203.230.10
F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.	3600000	IN	A	192.5.5.241
G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.	3600000	IN	A	192.112.36.4
H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.	3600000	IN	A	128.63.2.53
I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.	3600000	IN	A	192.36.148.17
J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.	3600000	IN	A	192.58.128.30
K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.	3600000	IN	A	193.0.14.129
L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.	3600000	IN	A	199.7.83.42
M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.	3600000	IN	A	202.12.27.33

;; Query time: 240 msec
;; SERVER: 198.41.0.4#53(198.41.0.4)
;; WHEN: Sat Dec 15 08:51:13 2007
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 447

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:58:41 -0800

> come to take for granted remain available.

Note that unless hosts flush their dhcp leases and ipv4 default routes
this actually will look more like an ipv4 transit outage on a dual-stack
supporting network then it will an ipv6 only network... While I think
it's a perfectly reasonable exercise I think it's better to aim to
simulate the latter rather than the former (which is operational rather
than architectural issues).

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:02:05 +0100

On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 08:54:01AM +1100,
 Mark Andrews <[email-masked]> wrote 

> 	Step one fix the root.

Yes, we won't go very far without it. Although there is a process to
add AAAA to root-servers.net:

http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac016.htm
http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac017.htm

It goes on at ICANN speed, so I'm not sure it will be ready for IETF
71.

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:05:18 +0100

On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 04:39:10PM -0500,
 IETF Chair <[email-masked]> 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 determine which
> services that they have come to take for granted remain available.

If there is no gateway somewhere with an IPv4 address, we will do very
little.

We performed this experience last month at an IPv6 training in
Nouakchott (Mauritania). The students had only IPv6 connectivity to
the Internet. As Mark Andrews said, we were not able to even resolve
the names with AAAA records because the root does not have IPv6. In
the end, we cheated by adding a DNS gateway (BIND on a machine with an
IPv4 address) and a Web gateway (Apache with mod_proxy on a machine
with an IPv4 address).

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:36:14 +1100

> IPv4 address) and a Web gateway (Apache with mod_proxy on a machine
 
	I cheat the other way by letting the nameserver see the
	AAAA's for the root servers that have IPv6 addresses.

	e.g. 
        zone "f.root-servers.net" {
                type master;
                file "master/f.root-servers.net";
                notify no;
                allow-query { localhost; };
        };

	master/f.root-servers.net:
	@ 3600 IN SOA drugs.dv.isc.org. marka.isc.org. 1 3600 1200 604800 3600
	@ 3600 IN NS drugs.dv.isc.org.
	@ 3600 IN A 192.5.5.241
	@ 3600 IN AAAA 2001:500::1035

	The question is what do we wish to test.  A IPv6 only world
	or a IPv6 only network with access to proxies etc. to allow
	access to IPv4 resources indirectly.

	Mark

---

From: Joao Damas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:46:23 +0100

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 *$?

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:07:50 +0200 (EET)

>> also be available for a 4-to-6 tunnel.
...
> 	Step one fix the root.

That's going to be a terriby useful exercise when about 99.9% or so 
other authoritative nameservers out there won't support v6.

A better exercise might be setting up a dual-stack DNS resolver which 
you can use from v6-only network or setting up a v4-in-v6 tunnel to 
your laptop from a similar dual-stack network.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:30:09 -0800

> IPv4 address) and a Web gateway (Apache with mod_proxy on a machine

you could add some AAAA glue to your named.root which in any event I'd
do if I were running a recursive nameserver with only v6 transit.

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:07:13 -0800

>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
>. . .

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".

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:20:18 -0500

>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) to adjust to 
the new cuisine?

This outage should be done.  Maybe attendees will have no access to 
the Internet for the duration, if so it'll be a lesson learned.

What's the worst that can happen - we have to listen to the plenary 
speakers without jabber sessions?

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Think glocally.  Act confused.

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:44:38 -0800

> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]
	
	The IETF can do that?

-- 
--bill

Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:32:26 -0800

> 	The IETF can do that?

Just have Bill jack it again...

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:37:32 -0800

> Just have Bill jack it again...

	again?  i never (well not publically)

-- 
--bill

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:58:34 -0800

> Or is it willing to do what's necessary (in the interim) to adjust to

Our networking team at Microsoft did run an "IPv6 only" trial during the development of Windows Vista. Volunteers only. The volunteers would disable the IPv4 stacks on their PC, and then attempt to go on with their normal work, both for internal applications such as corporate mail, file servers, or intranet servers, and for external applications, mostly web based. It worked, but it had to rely on a set of transport proxies for those internal applications that were not yet IPv6 ready, and of course web proxies for internal access.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:26:30 +0100

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 abuse).

Regards

[email-masked]

---

From: Mohsen Souissi <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 15:26:14 +0100

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.conf for Unixes) in the absence of that information
in a DHCPv4 environment. One would have to choose between:

- DHCPv6 option (RFC 3646 by way of RFC 3315-stateful or RFC
3736-stateless). That would mean that a DHCPv6 server would be
UP&RUNNING during the meeting and laptops equipped with a DHCPv6
client

- Modified RA (RFC 5006 - Experimental!)

- Manual setting: everybody would have to emacs/vi their
  /etc/resolv.conf or use any GUI available on their OS, while reading
  the recursive server's IPv6 address on the projection board

I think this issue which is not an obvious one (it is still a daily
hurdle for many people among "IPv6 volunteers") deserves being looked
during the experiment preparation if it hasn't been taken into account
yet.

Mohsen.

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 14:59:31 +0000

> 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 run it in prime time until we know 
how it will impact productivity.

Stewart

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:55:18 -0500

At 22:58 -0800 12/14/07, Christian Huitema wrote:
>Our networking team at Microsoft did run an "IPv6 only" trial during
>the development of Windows Vista. Volunteers only. The volunteers would
>disable the IPv4 stacks on their PC, and then attempt to go on with their
>normal work, both for internal applications such as corporate mail, file
>servers, or intranet servers, and for external applications, mostly web
>based. It worked, but it had to rely on a set of transport proxies for those
>internal applications that were not yet IPv6 ready, and of course web proxies
>for internal access.

(keeping with my food-based theme)

Learning from others' taste testing is good.  But it's better to 
taste it "your=IETF"self. ;)

As someone else said - I bet these were willing volunteers.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 10:14:23 -0500

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?
>>
> Lets do the experiment, but lets not run it in prime time until we  
> know how it will impact productivity.
>
> Stewart
>
>

An obvious idea would be to have a separate, IPv6 only, wireless  
network for the part or all of the meeting
locations for the entire week, not just the plenary. I have a feeling  
that it might take more than 2 hours to do useful debugging.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Jaap Akkerhuis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 16:57:15 +0100

(Someone said)

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. Lately I have not bothered to check whether
I was running op v6 or v4. It just seemed to work.

	jaap

---

From: Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:04:39 -0800

> know how it will impact productivity.

I thought the main point is to do it in prime time.  By giving such  
an advanced notice, the hope is probably to get more v6 work done to  
get ready, as a push towards  IP6 deployment.

Lixia

---

From: "Yaakov Stein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 08:02:33 +0200

> 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 that no-one is listening to the plenary
presentations anyway?

I sure wouldn't want to be showing slides when everyone is trying
to get their connectivity up. In fact, the shouting back and forth
of solutions to various problems will probably drown out the mike.

Why don't we dedicate a separate 2 hour plenary just to this experiment 
with the moderator announcing workarounds and collected statistics ?

Y(J)S

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:24:00 -0800 (PST)

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 vocally instead?

:-)

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [email-masked]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

> with the moderator announcing workarounds and collected statistics ?
k

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 19:55:03 +0100

>> 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.

> network for the part or all of the meeting locations for the entire  
> week, not just the plenary. I have a feeling that it might take more  
> than 2 hours to do useful debugging.

Agree. In cases like this you generally run into multiple hurdles, so  
if you want to learn about more than the first one, you need to have  
the time to jump over each of them. There have already been two  
different wireless networks the last several meetings, one could be  
made IPv6-only the whole week. Then during the plenary session, the  
other network can be brought down and then back up again as IPv6-only  
to trigger hosts to forget their DHCP leases.

But what about transition mechanisms, or would that be unfair?

If we want to simulate living in a world where there is no IPv4, lack  
of IPv6 in the DNS root means no DNS so you can't even reach IPv6- 
enabled destinations unless you remember their IPv6 address. So at the  
very least we need fake AAAA records for the root in a resolving DNS  
server (or get ICANN to move ahead with this within 3 months). A dual  
stack resolver would be better, though. Not sure which OSes can learn  
DNS resolver addresses from DHCPv6: Windows Vista maybe? Certainly not  
Mac OS or any BSD/Linux distribution I've used. And I don't think  
_anything_ supports DNS resolver addresses in RAs as the ink on the  
RFC isn't dry yet.

NAT-PT is deprecated so I guess it's not appropriate to run that.  
Having a dual stack HTTP(S) proxy means that pretty much all the web  
and some other stuff is usable. (Even for Windows XP hosts, which run  
IPv6 but can't do name lookups over IPv6. If you point to a proxy  
using the literal IPv6 address you can work around this.) A TCP relay  
could be useful for those of us without IPv6-capable mail servers.

A good way to test all of this could be to start with the most  
complete set of transition mechanisms available on the IPv6-only  
network and then remove one mechanism each day until on thursday night  
it's IPv6-only all the time with no access to IPv4 allowed whatsoever.

My personal experience running IPv6-only on my MacBook Pro: my  
mailserver is dual stack anyway, and a HTTP(S) takes care of the web  
and pretty much anything that streams over HTTP. Main issue is IM:  
Apple's iChat can do Jabber over IPv6 if there is also IPv4, but not  
when running IPv4-only. I haven't found another client that will do  
this but I haven't looked hard. Network printing also doesn't work.

I'm happy to volunteer for the preparations for all of this.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 07:56:06 -0800

> 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 InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 08:48:38 -0800

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.
>

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 flowing end to end. 
The test is getting their systems set up.

>The IETF doesn't do those...

...but should. In the VPN Consortium's logo testing, we see much more 
difficulty with the operations side of IPsec than in the IPsec 
protocol itself. I would not be surprised to hear similar results for 
other protocol suites, such as IPv6.

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

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:13:19 -0800

> The test is getting their systems set up.

No, the test is using them.

 From the IETF site back to the user's home site.

Lots of independent administrations involved.

Will they work together?

That's interoperability.

> ...but should.

Well, we certainly could walk down the path of listing the things the IETF 
"should" do, but that would be wrong...

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:51:23 -0800

>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

---

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:52:58 -0800

>
>
>
>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

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:59:29 -0800

Bob Braden wrote:
> 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 interface details for 
Internet applications.

In other words, we have a combination of community expertise and very long 
established practice.  We aren't likely to succeed with whimsical decisions to 
go beyond that established scope.

IPv6 interoperability testing is beyond our established scope?  Yes!

Going beyond it might be fine, but only with due deliberation.  The likelihood 
of unintended consequences is essentially 100% and the track record for 
unintended consequences is that they are mostly undesired.

The example of increased BAR BOF attendance during the plenary was a very nice 
example, I thought.

  And it would seem
> that circumstances of IPv6 might strongly favor the utility of such a 

I think IPv6 interoperability testing would be dandy.

I think that treating it as an imposition is questionable.

I think that approaching it as anything other than needing quite a lot of 
planning and guidance -- as opposed to the sink-or-swim model with which it 
was put forward -- is particularly risky.

For example, one would expect simple documents offering guidance for common 
components, such as various windows and mac platforms and common server platforms.

The presumption in the announcement was that participants have a) a great deal 
of end-to-end control, while they (we) often won't, and b) a great deal of 
technical and operations knowledge about all of the relevant comonents, while 
they (we) often don't.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 12:15:16 -0800 (PST)

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 
presentations, I can tell you that everyone agreed it worked much
better than the typical
"I'll-ingnore-this-boring-speaker-and-order-some-stuff-online-instead"
model.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen

---

From: Aki Niemi <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 22:32:54 +0200

> speakers without jabber sessions?

Then again, there is XEP-0174.

Cheers,
Aki

---

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:18:03 -0800

>
>
>
>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 deliberation.  The 
>likelihood of unintended consequences is essentially 100% and the track 
>record for unintended consequences is that they are mostly undesired.

Weeeelll, that sounds nice, but I think it is too gloomy.  I can well 
imagine the UC's being quite desirable.

>planning and guidance -- as opposed to the sink-or-swim model with which 
>it was put forward -- is particularly risky.

+++1

Don't underestimate community momentum.

Bob

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:43:00 -0800

I do not interpret this as "there will be a plenary going on while we 
experiment with the operational issues". Instead, it sounded like the 
discussion of operational issues would in fact be the plenary.

So, no, closing our laptops would not be useful for this exercise. :-)

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 16:44:59 -0500

<removed lots of ccs  from this frivolous reply>

On 16 dec 2007, at 15.15, Ole Jacobsen wrote:

> 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 so bad for the poor I*s up on the dais  
with no laptop to hide behind.

on the other hand i like the ipv6 experiment - time to sink or swim.   
and imagine the press if ipv6 fails so publicly.

too bad the idea of IP co-existence was never able to actually take  
hold in the community.

a.

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 15:58:29 -0800

> other protocol suites, such as IPv6.

	if you think it should, then we should get Dan Lynch back
	and redo the fourth meeting of the year again... just can
	not call it Interop this go round.

--bill

-- 
--bill

---

From: JW Atwood <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:00:06 -0500

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 it.)

I have wanted to "try" IPv6 for some while.  Thank you for providing 
this motivation to "get ready".

  Bill Atwood

IETF Chair wrote:
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>   

-- 

Dr. J.W. Atwood, Eng.             tel:   +1 (514) 848-2424 x3046
Professor Emeritus                fax:   +1 (514) 848-2830
Department of Computer Science
   and Software Engineering
Concordia University EV 3.185     email: [email-masked]
1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West    http: //users.encs.concordia.ca/~bill
Montreal, Quebec Canada H3G 1M8

---

From: JW Atwood <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:00:06 -0500

Bill Atwood

--

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:25:46 +0100

On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 03:30:09PM -0800,
 Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 29 lines which said:

> you could add some AAAA 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 such as google.com,
amazon.com, icann.org, elysee.fr, etc.

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:27:14 +0100

On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 08:20:18PM -0500,
 Edward Lewis <[email-masked]> wrote 

...
> This outage should be done. 

I suggest a more radical experiment. We should all run a DNSSEC-aware
resolver on our laptops with a policy of "accept only signed
domains".

---

From: Norbert Bollow <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:35:19 +0100 (CET)

> 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 sense of
"not dual-stack to the customer edge") to end-users.

Greetings,
Norbert.

-- 
Norbert Bollow <[email-masked]>                      http://Norbert.ch
President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG    http://SIUG.ch
Working on establishing a non-corrupt and
truly /open/ international standards organization  http://OpenISO.org

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:02:52 -0300

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

Regards,
Jordi

> De: JW Atwood <[email-masked]>
> Organización: Concordia University, Department of Computer Science and
> Software Engineering
> Responder a: <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:00:06 -0500
> Para: <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary
> 

**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 07:36:59 -0800

> http://www.ipv6tf.org/index.php?page=using/connectivity/guides

Thanks for sending that.

Unfortunately, the instructions for XP don't work.  Besides the menu path not 
working, once I get down to ...>Select Network Component > Protocol there is 
no "IPv6" choice.

The only thing that looks plausible is "Microsoft TCP/IP version 6".

I suppose they mean "IP version 6" rather than "Microsoft ... version 6" but 
thought it worth checking so that everyone else sees the answer.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:47:34 -0500

>>>>> "Norbert" == Norbert Bollow <[email-masked]> writes:

    >> 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 mechanisms only if we believe they are a good idea.

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.

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:57:51 -0500

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.

Some suggestions:

* Explicit documentation of any special preparations
   implemented by the IETF NOC

* Several jabber rooms during the experiment (and archive
   the logs); some suggestions:
   - explicit operational issues: successes, questions, help
   - read-only headlines from IETF NOC
   - general discussion
   - pointers to "places that work"

   Note that there is a chicken-and-egg issue accessing the jabber
   rooms over IPv6...

* IETF NOC post mortem

* IESG/IAB-sponsored post mortem

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:59:40 -0500

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

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:31:25 -0300

I'm not sure to understand what is the problem. This has been used by tons
of people !

The easier way may be using a command: start-run-cmd then ipv6 install. This
should work with any service pack that you have.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
> Organización: Brandenburg InternetWorking
> Responder a: <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 07:36:59 -0800
> Para: <[email-masked]>
> CC: <[email-masked]>

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:07:10 -0800

> not as a network configuration anyone should be expected to use on a

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 work.

Two major questions:

a)  What is the current assessment about IPv6 support for major backbone 
service providers?

b)  What is the lowly participant to do if they are a mere customer of a real, 
commercial service provider or a real organizational IT department who does 
not support v6 on production machines?

With respect to the latter, what information will be usefully obtained by the 
blocking of these participants from their home services that could not have 
been learned from a simple survey to their home service operators?

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:02:01 -0800

> I'm not sure to understand what is the problem. This has been used by tons

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 that do.

If using the command window is the only reasonable path that works for XP, 
then thanks for the point.  I'm suspecting there is one that is a bit more 
user friendly...

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:23:41 -0800

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.

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:32:36 -0300

Command line works with any service pack. An alternative that works, I
recall starting with SP1, was going to network connections -> local area
connection (or any network interface), properties, install->protocol and
then one of the choices is IPv6.

This may be helpful:

http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XX/PDF/sunday/IPv6-startup_eng_v5_
1.pdf

By the way, when you install IPv6, if IE has any open window, you need to
restart IE in order to be able to browse with IPv6.

Regards,
Jordi

> Fecha: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:02:01 -0800

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:51:30 -0800

Fred Baker wrote:
> 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.

working groups have conducted interop events?  no, I hadn't heard of that.

but I hope my misunderstanding doesn't distract us from seeking to make this 
one succeed or, at least, making it a meaningful "experiment" rather than one 
pretty much guaranteed to fail...

d/

ps.  it has even occurred to me that the hidden agenda here is to demonstrate 
to the IETF just how poor Internet-wide support of v6 is...

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:15:21 +0100

> Each of these must support v6, for true dual stack to work.

IPv6 support on the laptop should be doable if the participant cares  
to enable it for pretty much any OS that shipped in the last 5 years.  
Obviously the IETF part should be working, and if the participant's  
service provider has IPv6 connectivity then by definition they are  
connected to a backbone that supports this.

Please note that dual stack is not an interesting test. Unless I'm  
mistaken, the IETF meeting network has supported dual stack IPv4 +  
IPv6. This simply means that people running IPv4-only don't see a  
difference. Also, if we had enough address space to give everyone the  
IPv4 part of dual stack we wouldn't need IPv6 in the first place. IPv6- 
only is the future.

> b)  What is the lowly participant to do if they are a mere customer  
> of a real, commercial service provider or a real organizational IT  
> department who does not support v6 on production machines?

Untether from the mother ship for a an hour?

Use a transition mechanism such as a transport relay to access  
services at home?

> With respect to the latter, what information will be usefully  
> obtained by the blocking of these participants from their home  
> services that could not have been learned from a simple survey From [email-masked] Mon Dec 17 13:47:34 2007
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:15:21 +0100
Cc: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary

> Each of these must support v6, for true dual stack to work.

IPv6 support on the laptop should be doable if the participant cares  
to enable it for pretty much any OS that shipped in the last 5 years.  
Obviously the IETF part should be working, and if the participant's  
service provider has IPv6 connectivity then by definition they are  
connected to a backbone that supports this.

Please note that dual stack is not an interesting test. Unless I'm  
mistaken, the IETF meeting network has supported dual stack IPv4 +  
IPv6. This simply means that people running IPv4-only don't see a  
difference. Also, if we had enough address space to give everyone the  
IPv4 part of dual stack we wouldn't need IPv6 in the first place. IPv6- 
only is the future.

> b)  What is the lowly participant to do if they are a mere customer  
> of a real, commercial service provider or a real organizational IT  
> department who does not support v6 on production machines?

Untether from the mother ship for a an hour?

Use a transition mechanism such as a transport relay to access  
services at home?

> With respect to the latter, what information will be usefully  
> obtained by the blocking of these participants from their home  
> services that could not have been learned from a simple survey to  
> their home service operators?

I think this question is easier to answer afterwards than beforehand...

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:46:23 -0500

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:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> what leads you to believe that the IETF doesn't do interoperability to

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:46:23 -0500

- Ralph

On Dec 17, 2007, at Dec 17, 2007,12:23 PM, Fred Baker wrote:

> following the recent IETF and going back in various working groups  
> as far as I can remember.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iD8DBQFHZrCebjEdbHIsm0MRAkHvAJ0ewiQIBvnSWP6/azSMbV5dNEdKdQCg41Ni
> jK35XWwmLY7zg8p1qbh/DlM=
> =u3fv
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

 
> following the recent IETF and going back in various working groups  
> as far as I can remember.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iD8DBQFHZrCebjEdbHIsm0MRAkHvAJ0ewiQIBvnSWP6/azSMbV5dNEdKdQCg41Ni
> jK35XWwmLY7zg8p1qbh/DlM=
> =u3fv
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:13:51 -0800

Hi -

> From: "Dave Crocker" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Fred Baker" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "IETF-Discussion" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 9:51 AM
> Subject: IETF interoperability testing
...
> working groups have conducted interop events?  no, I hadn't heard of that.

I recall ones for SNMPv2 (various flavors), AgentX, and SNMPv3.  One might
quibble about whether they were organized by the working group, or whether
it was just a mighty coincidence that people from companies with employees
who attended these working groups hashed out mutual NDAs and held bake-offs
to verify that their implementations could interoperate, as well as experiments
over the open Internet.

> pretty much guaranteed to fail...

Sometimes the result of an experiment is a demonstration that something
doesn't always work, which can help prove that a theory is incorrect.

> to the IETF just how poor Internet-wide support of v6 is...

Hidden?

Randy

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:04:11 -0800

I agree with Sam, I don't think that we are proposing to shut down the IPv4 Internet overnight so what is proposed here is more of the nature of a PR stunt, a proof of concept than a test of a transition strategy.
 
PR stunts can be good, but they can also have the opposite effect if you don't know what is going to happen. I have been involved in several 'public' interop events at conferences. There is no way I would be within a hundred feet of one, let alone participate if I did not have absolute certainty in advance of what the result was going to be (yes there is usually a pre-interop before hand).
 
So what is the message we want to project here and what is the result we expect from the test?
 
If the result is that IPv6 does not work on the Windows machines in the room there will be much glee on Slashdot but the effort will tend to demonstrate the opposite of what I would want to demonstrate.
 
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. 
 
A better test would be:
 
1) Set up a transparent IPv4 to IPv6 proxy
2) Turn off the externally routable IPv4 address space in the room, giving machines a NATed address in net 10 as their leases expire
3) Demonstrate that people can perform basic Internet functions in this state (Web, mail, Jabber) without disruption
 
People are making far too much of this transition as if it is something that the end user should care about. If we want the transition to work it has to happen without the end-user needing to know or care just like they didn't need to know when fuel injection replaced carburetors in the mid 80s.

________________________________

From: Sam Hartman [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Mon 17/12/2007 10:47 AM
To: Norbert Bollow
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:20:01 -0800

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 sides I would dispute that.

The usability of ipv4 private address space is compromised quite a bit
when you need enough that you have to maintain parallel management
structures for multiple instances of the same space, your customers use
that the same ip ranges internally and networks you need to interconnect
with use the same space as well.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:49:24 -0800

> general sponsorship arrangement or other association of the event with

and

> to verify that their implementations could interoperate, as well as experiments

This is interesting.  People seem to be confused about formal affiliation with 
IETF processes, versus independent activities that are a useful adjunct to 
IETF work.

Let's be clear:  When an activity that relates to working group product is not 
organized within the working group -- you know, overseen by the chairs, 
minutes written, and other the other group process stuff of an open IETF 
effort -- then it is not an IETF effort.

Apparently some folk thought I was making a slam at the IETF when I noted we 
don't do interoperability tests.  It wasn't a slam.  The lifecycle of a 
successful protocol involves quite a few phases, with quite a few 
participants, at the micro and macro level.  The IETF is a factor in only some 
of these.

But as anyone who has run a successful interoperability event for a successful 
protocol knows, you don't just declare a time and place for a party and see 
what happens.  That's the way the upcoming plenary was presented to us.

At a minimum, it demonstrated that serious events for exploring utility and 
problems are not commonly within the purview of IETF-specific operations.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:12:16 -0800 (PST)

> paper (I know, a radical idea), would this really be such a terrible

That's exactly what it would be: A terrible thing.

I routinely use my laptop during meetings to look up stuff relating to whatever
is being presented, chat with others regarding the presentation, and in many
cases to look at slides with print too small for me to see on the screen at the
front of the room.

And yes, I'm pretty good at multitasking so I also often check and respond to
email, write code, and do all sorts  of other stuff. (I can't recall ever
buying anything from an online store during a meeting but I would not hesitate
to do so if it made sense.) The unfortunate reality is that the information
density of PowerPoint presentations is typically so low that asking me to focus
on what's being presented is effectively asking me to waste half my time. (I
will add that some - but not all - IETF plenary presentations I've seen have
been notable exceptions to this rule.)

More generally, I've come to resent attempts by others to micromanage how I
work. In doing this you are in effect saying that you know more about what's
important for me to be doing that I do.

> "I'll-ingnore-this-boring-speaker-and-order-some-stuff-online-instead"

Yeah, somebody tried this at some meeting I attended a few years back. It
sucked so loud and hard that I flat out told the people whose came up with this
idiocy that under no circumstances would I ever attend another meeting that had
such a policy. And I was far from the only person who reacted so negatively.

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 connectivity is most problematic?

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 wireless issues and heaven
knows what else.

Unlike some others I have no objection to performing such experiments but
I really have to wonder if the parameters for this one are well chosen.

				Ned

---

From: "Yaakov Stein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 08:40:09 +0200

> 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

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 08:58:42 +0100

> IPv6 issues are likely going to be conflated with wireless issues and heaven

My own personal experience at the last two IETFs has been pretty good. 
Vancouver was rock solid throughout the facility, and during the
plenary.  There was a single dark spot in Chicago in a particular room. 
I think the team has really gotten quite good at managing wireless. 
This, by the way, was a good example of us learning by doing.  It took a
while for things to get kinked out, but in the end we now know a large
wireless room can be done.  I imagine the same would be true for IPv6.

I think the thing people are struggling with is much more basic:
individuals don't get anything by moving to v6.  With wireless I got
freedom from having to stick a cable here or there.  Maybe we should
hand out lollipops or something for those who use v6.

Eliot

---

From: Norbert Bollow <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:13:26 +0100 (CET)

> not as a network configuration anyone should be expected to use on a

Dual stack is a transition mechanism.  The idea is that ISPs provide
dual-stack service up to the customer edge for some time, during
which a gradual migration to v6 takes place, ideally without end
users being forced to pay attention to any changes.

If this works out, after this phase there would be phase in the
transition during which ISPs no longer provide v4 service up to
the customer edge, but provide for some other sort of transition
mechanism to allow their customers to communicate with the IPv4-only
hosts that still exist.

I believe that it is that second transition phase that this test
should aim to simulate.

Greetings,
Norbert.

---

From: Norbert Bollow <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:26:47 +0100 (CET)

Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]> 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 meachnism for
somehow influencing those who don't particularly care about the
opinion of those who try to tell everyone else what the transition
strategy should be.

> PR stunts can be good, but they can also have the opposite effect if you
> don't know what is going to happen. I have been involved in several
> 'public' interop events at conferences. There is no way I would be
> within a hundred feet of one, let alone participate if I did not have
> absolute certainty in advance of what the result was going to be (yes
> there is usually a pre-interop before hand).

+1

Greetings,
Norbert.

---

From: Norbert Bollow <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:52:42 +0100 (CET)

> hand out lollipops or something for those who use v6.

I totally agree with your line of thinking, and I'd propose that
the one incentive for using v6 which would successfully convince
end users to switch to v6 would be if that way, they could get a
(subjectively at least) much faster connection at the same price.

The key question therefore is this: Are we able to influence the
majority of the large ISPs to do something like that?

Greetings,
Norbert.

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 10:56:10 +0100

> wireless connectivity is most problematic?

The humanity! Next thing we'll have to be offline flying to/from the  
meeting location! Oh, wait...

> IPv6 issues are likely going to be conflated with wireless issues  

1. The wireless performance during plenaries has been getting a lot  
better now that we also have 802.11g and 802.11a and many people  
actually use those rather than collide with each other on 802.11b (and  
maybe the reduction in attendance helps a bit too)

2. These are exactly the issues we should discover when there is still  
some time left before some people will be forced to start running this  
experiment 24/7 because there are no IPv4 addresses left for them

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 07:58:57 -0800

The IETF has not to date taken the type of actions that enable it to influence the Internet. The limitation to having a consensus seeking design is that it limits your ability to project policy to external forums.
 
In particular the relationship of the IETF to the rest of the Internet infrastructure is largely 'write only'. The IETF will be glad to share its views with others but has not established the type of infrastructure to actively listen. anyone who wants to influence the IETF is told that they need to get involved in the IETF personally, and the minute they do that they cease speaking on behalf of MAAWG or APWG, or W3C or Microsoft or Cisco or AT&T or any of the other constituencies that beleive that they have a stake in this issue.
 
The result is that the discussion tends to be driven by people who see the Internet in a totally different perspective to the typical Internet user. 
 
While wrting The dotCrime Manifesto I kept having to ask myself 'why with all this cool cryptographic technology available did we fail to deploy so much of it', I don't think the problem was lack of interest or even the patents. The base problem was that we were trying to solve the security problems of a different Internet infrastructure to the one that was emerging.

The only dog I have in this particular fight is that if the IETF can find a way to be influential in deploying IPv6 it can maybe find a way to be influential in deploying the Accountable Web I argue for in dotCrime. Conversely if I find a way to be influential in arguing for a accountability based security infrastructure in the Internet I am going to be thinking about what can be done to leverage for the IPv6 transition at the same time.
 
I have been talking to the stakeholders and I think I have a pretty good idea of what the issues that concern them are. What I am missing is the relative strength of those drivers and timing. We need to begin by listening.

The principal concern I would have as an ISP is that I know that the IPv6 transition will become essential at some point in the future. I would therefore want to know what steps I can take now that will insulate the capital investment I am making today from those changes. Replacing cable modems is a very epensive proposition, even a flash upgrade can incur a serious cost. Better to minimize those costs now if I can by pushing the features I need into the DOCSIS, WiMAX and ADSL specifications.

From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tue 18/12/2007 3:52 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Incentives for using v6 (was Re: IPv4 Outage Planned...)

Greetings,
Norbert.

--
Norbert Bollow <[email-masked]>                      http://Norbert.ch <http://norbert.ch/> 
President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG    http://SIUG.ch <http://siug.ch/> 
Working on establishing a non-corrupt and
truly /open/ international standards organization  http://OpenISO.org <http://openiso.org/>

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 08:44:54 -0800

> the next few weeks.  Please do whatever you can to make ready ...

Russ,

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. Therefore, seeing what happens when IPv4 service is off is of
extremely minimal value, especially when run in the uncontrolled
environment of the IETF plenary.

Moreover, it seems like it's *precisely* when you're trying to bring
up a bunch of new networking stuff that you'd like to have your old,
reliable network in place so that you can look stuff up, download
updates, etc. Even when configuring new IPv4 systems, which I
understand pretty well, I generally find that I need some backup
system/network connection for this kind of thing. I would expect the
situation to be far worse with IPv6, where people have far less
experience.

Second, the IETF network is a production network, not an experimental
testbed. People rely on it to get their work done, no less so at the
plenary. Breaking the network for 30-60 minutes during that period
imposes an unacceptable burden on those who are trying to work. 
Incidentally, does this include people who aren't even in the
plenary? If I'm in my room trying to do slides for Thursday am
I going to just experience an outage?

Finally, it is inappropriate to make a decision of this nature without
seeking the consensus of the IETF. Various IPv6 eating our own dogfood
experiments have been proposed on the IETF list in the past and have
always met with an extremely negative exception. Given that, unilaterally
making this decision seems quite premature.

-Ekr

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 presentation or discussion than having everyone in 
the room busily focused on trying to unscrew their network. If
the plenary activities merit this little attention, perhaps
we should consider cancelling them entirely. Or is this just an
involuntary 30-60 minute interop event?

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:17:48 -0800

...
> future. 
...
> reliable network in place 
...
...
> seeking the consensus of the IETF. 
...
> the room busily focused on trying to unscrew their network. 

+10.

d/

ps. For those who have watched Klensin and me beat people over the head, by 
noting the import that should be imparted by his and my agreeing on an issue, 
they should equally note that my concurrence with Eric on an issue of 
substance is vastly more rare.

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 are a) choice of venue, and b) lack of 
clear goals and planning.  Something to consider might be an effort to have a 
productive social gathering.  In other words, make the Tuesday night slot be 
for conducting this exercise.  It would not take much to set a relatively 
festive tone, while still pursuing serious interoperability testing.
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:21:51 -0500

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 (AAAA in the root
and/or server hacks), DHCPv6, etc, but assuming those
issues get resolved, can we construct some plan for
constructive use of the time?

 From my perspective, the worst case here is that we have
a 30-60min network outage announced four months in advance.

The better case is that it's an opportunity for us
engineers to learn: by doing.  ("Doing" in the sense of
using IPv6 for those that haven't; and in the sense
of watching/helping others use it for those that have been
working with it for some time).

Leslie.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
      Yours to discover."
                                 -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:29:36 +0000

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 are a) choice of
> venue, and b) lack of clear goals and planning.  Something to consider
> might be an effort to have a productive social gathering.  In other
> words, make the Tuesday night slot be for conducting this exercise.  It
> would not take much to set a relatively festive tone, while still
> pursuing serious interoperability testing.

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 motivate me at
least:-)

S.

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:52:14 -0800

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 motivate me at least:-)

How would you ensure that a participant doesn't print-out a coupon for  
everyone on the attendance list, and then party hearty.  Perhaps they  
could enter their name and a number given them much like their T-shirt  
coupon.

-Doug

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:04:04 +0000

Douglas Otis wrote:
>> 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 motivate me at least:-)
> 

In that case, I'd prefer no replay protection:-) I'm sure the organisers
could figure out something,
S.

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:22:48 -0600

We've got to be close to a hijacked thread here, I think... engineers will 
debug anything!

Spencer

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:32:00 -0500

--On Tuesday, 18 December, 2007 09:17 -0800 Dave Crocker
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Are you thinking that people will be speaking during this
>> period? It's hard to imagine anything more disruptive to
>> having a plenary presentation or discussion than having
>> everyone in  the room busily focused on trying to unscrew
>> their network. 
> 
> 
> +10.
> 
> d/
> 
> ps. For those who have watched Klensin and me beat people over
> the head, by noting the import that should be imparted by his
> and my agreeing on an issue, they should equally note that my
> concurrence with Eric on an issue of substance is vastly more
> rare.

Ok.  While I had decided to just ignore most of this thread, the
presence of three-way agreement is too much of an opportunity to
pass up.

A few observations, more to reinforce and possibly put a
different stress on comments made by others than to say anything
really new:

(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 communication and smooth
interoperability fabric.  We know that there are no IPv6 records
in the root servers and that many of the root servers aren't
widely connected to IPv6 networks.  We know that most IPv6 use
today involves tunnels between hosts or between network islands.

Now we also know that skilled engineers and network operators
are capable of configuring their way around those problems.  But
those who know how to do it know how to do it (and probably are
doing it already).  Inviting the rest of the community to try to
sort things out in real-time in the plenary is silly at best.
It will make the plenary useless and deprive us of the
considerable advantages of being able to work together to
resolve issues.   

If the IESG believes this sort of demonstration is important
enough, cancel the plenary program, announce an IPv6
connectivity workshop for that time slot, and _maybe_ turn down
the IPv4 network during that time.   If you don't want to blow
off the plenary, then schedule an IPv6 connectivity workshop for
Sunday afternoon, maybe cancel most of the others, and announce
it now so that people have time to plan flights.  Or, as Dave
suggested, wipe out the social and replace it with a workshop.
If we really want an "eat our own dogfood" process, then no more
socials, only connectivity workshops, until IPv6 is universally
(or at least seamlessly for those who want it) deployed.   Such
workshops are events from which we could learn, and possibly
even demonstrate to the outside world that the perceived
problems can be overcome.  

Leslie's recent note (with a changed subject line) is, I believe
the sensible one here.  Let's not organize a demonstration whose
outcome we know, or some strange way to punish those who are not
already running IPv6.   Let's try to figure out how we can do
something constructive for the IETF community or the Internet
and/or from which we can learn things we _don't_ know.  If we
can't do something constructive, let's not waste out time.

There is one other issue that I would encourage people to think
about.   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
headlines: 

	(i) Not even IETF can get IPv6 to work seamlessly.
	(ii) IPv6 is so complicated that only the IETF experts,
	struggling mightily, can get it to work in a drop-in
	environment.

I don't know which one prefers, but neither is going to advance
the universal deployment of IPv6 or do anything else good (other
than selling a few more issues of something).

Finally, speaking from a very personal perspective, I'm a strong
supporter of IPv6.  I've been giving talks in various places for
years about the economic advantages of getting on board sooner
or later and about strategies by while key organizations can
actually make money on products that support the thing (more of
them in the next 24 hours).  But I'm not going to risk screwing
up my production systems in the interests of a few hours of
demo.  And I'm not going to switch my production systems over to
IPv6 (or even turn on dual-stack functions) until at least one
of the ISPs I use is offering native IPv6 service with no
tunnels or other workarounds.  It turns out that the meeting
sponsor, who I assume is one of those pushing this because of
their leadership in IPv6, is one of my ISPs.  Every time I hear
--at an IETF meeting or elsewhere-- about their strong support
for IPv6, I go home and call up my local representative and say
"what do I do to get IPv6 turned on here".   As long as the
answer is, or is the equivalent of, "how do you spell 'IPv6'?",
this sort of outage/demonstration is, for me, a joke because, if
I can't get to my systems, my laptop might as well be off
(modulo the opportunity to sit in on a bad attitude Jabber
session if I can get that working and find a Jabber server that
I can access over IPv6).  And I share Ned's attitude toward
people who decide they are better qualified to tell me how to
spend my time than I am.

     john

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:04:52 -0600

On 12/18/07 at 1:32 PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:

>Reporters come to our meetings and attend plenaries.

Simply reporting on this thread would lend itself to some interesting 
headlines, with minimal sensationalization:

"Proposal that the IETF use IPv6 exclusively for 60 minutes causes 
widespread panic"

I really don't have a strong opinion on the proposal itself; I can 
live without network connectivity for an hour (or I can cheat and use 
my EVDO card for an hour :-) ). But this entire conversation has been 
exceedingly informative:

a) As an Apps guy, this talk does not bode well for how seriously 
IPv6 has been taken in getting basic infrastructure issues solved 
such that applications can run.

b) As a user who runs my own little corner of the network, this 
doesn't make me sanguine about being able to get my basic services up 
and running under IPv6 anytime soon.

I'm somewhere between depressed and amused.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:30:12 -0800

As a corp spokesperson type but not speaking on behalf of my employer I see the same type of risk here. We have to think very carefully before trying any form of public experiment.
 
The outcome 'it don't work' may be acceptable if we have a plan in place in advance to fix it. Otherwise I suspect I would not be the only person going down to the meeting with their PR flack.

There is an apps area / network area divide here. Network area seem to think that we should care about this change as users and apps area people realize that the real definition of success would be that users don't notice it. Back in the 1980s the UK moved to unleaded fuel. Lets consider the apps area approach versus the network area approach:
 
Network Area: Motorists will either need to buy a new car before March 1989 or modify their existing cylinder head to use unleaded gas. The changeover process is simple and can be performed in a few hours with a modestly equipped workshop as follows: First remove the old cylinder head from the engine (having first removed it from the car if necessary), take note of the settings on the sprokle chain and degauss the carburetor. Second, remove existing valves and valve seats, replacing them with hardened seats conforming to BS 6008 or better. Third skim the head, replace the sprokkle chain and crankshaft, replacing all seals and other marine mammals. Forth, replace the cylinder head and reinstall engine. Finally, retune the engine and carbs and reboot.
 
Apps Area: If your car was manufactured before 1982 check this list to see if it is already capable of running on unleaded fuel, if not you will either need to use an additive or have the car converted by a professional mechanic.

Telling folk that they need a mechanic might appear to be the cop out but actually the reverse is the case. Motorists of the 1920s era were entirely familiar with the way that their cars worked and expected that they would either spend a considerable amount of time working on them themselves or pay a professional chauffeur/mechanic to do so for them. By the 1940s there were still some niche manufacturers such as MG who sold a car that was designed to let you be your own mechanic but most cars were built to the assumption that there would be drivers and professional mechanics and that all maintenance operations had to fit into one bucke or the other.
 
As far as having presentations ruined by people debugging networks. I think we should have a series of lightning talks of 3 minutes each by anyone who thinks they have a solution to the IPv6 transition.
 
Yes talking to a room full of IETFers trying to debug their network connections might be a challenge but I suspect that most of us either won't bother or will direct their machines to connect through some bootleg gateway that someone lashes together to allow us to get work done with as little fuss as possible.

From: Pete Resnick [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tue 18/12/2007 2:04 PM
To: John C Klensin
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary

pr

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:40:56 +0200

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 install something new at the same time without a network;
there needs to be better model for that.

But I think we should still do something. I viewed Russ' call as an
opportunity for the IETF community to take a challenge and see what we
can make happen by IETF-71. As a personal note, I've had IPv6 turned on
my equipment, home site, and company site for years but during the last
few months I have tried create a situation where most of own
communications would be on IPv6. We converted the company mail servers
and gateways that I use to dual stack; some of my own web systems got
AAAA records too; I ensured that the tools that I use have the right
capabilities and defaults to use IPv6; I've contacted the admins of the
remaining IETF web sites that still are IPv4 only to ask if they can be
converted to dual stack. A significant part of my communications go over
IPv6 today, and I have a hope to get this to cover most of my
work-related communications. And yes, there's pain. I'm typically the
first one to experience the firewall config bug or routing issue on the
IPv6 side. But I'm willing...

So, I would suggest that we focus on the positive opportunities that
Leslie mentioned. Get more things to work. Challenge sponsors to do so
as well. Solve some of the remaining problems. Educate ourselves both by
doing and by seeing what others do or where they fail. See what works in
IETF-71 (but the format of that is less important).

Obviously, this needs planning -- Russ' mail is not the plan but rather
a call for us to figure out what would make sense. Much work needed...

I'm also somewhat surprised by the reluctance of people to try things
out. Where's our sense of adventure and eagerness to do new things? We
are engineers after all, tinkering with network setups should be fun,
no? Boldly go where no group of thousand has ever been... Or at the very
least, lets change something for the better.

Jari

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:41:28 +0200

John,

While I agree with many of your comments, I wanted to touch on this:

> are capable of configuring their way around those problems.
> ...  Inviting the rest of the community to try to
I hope you are not suggesting that there is some significant part of the
IETF community that consists of non-skilled engineers?! ;-)

Jari

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:43:10 -0500

> considerable advantages of being able to work together to

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 meeting will be IPv6.
Note just for an hour.  Not just for the plenery.  Not just for the
social; but FOR THE WHOLE WEEK.  In other words, let people who are
using the IETF wireless network experience what it might be like in
some future world where the ISP's are only providing IPv6 connectivity
and IPv6 addresses to new customers.

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 root on the IETF network, and document that fact.  If there
needs to be NAT-PT bridges to allow IETF'res to get back to their home
networks connected to ISP's that don't yet offer IPv6 connectivty,
then let there be NAT-PT bridges --- and document them.  If various
Windows, Macintosh, and Linux laptops need special configuration so to
work around other problems, then document what the workarounds should
be, and give people early warning and access to them.

The first time this gets done, it will be painful.  Maybe the first
and second time there should be a wired terminal room for people who
weren't able to configure their laptops in advance.  (Or maybe the
IPv4 network can be made available over the wireless on a separate
SSID with a fee attached, with the excess monies going towards making
funding technical work to make the IPv6 workarounds better documented
and easier to deploy for future IETF meetings, and with the IPv4 fee
gradually getting raised at each subsequent meeting.)  Hopefully, with
each subsequent IETF meeting, it will get easier, with the number of
ugly kludges and workarounds needed gradually decreasing.

And maybe it shouldn't be the IETF who does this first, but some other
organization which is more focused on the network providers, such as
RIPE.  But the point is, if a conferenceful of network engineers can't
provide IPv6 to a collection of its attendees, even if ugly hacks and
workarouds are needed, what hope is there for everyone else?  

And if we put this off because "we're not ready yet", and hence fear
the negative PR of failure, when will IPv6 be ready?  And the press
already knows that IPv6 isn't ready --- everyone knows that; so it's
not a story.  Now, if the entire IETF community could actually *use*
IPv6 in an IPv6-only world, now *that* would be a story.  And if it
could use it without a huge number of hacks, that would be a
stop-the-presses situation!

Without a forcing function, alas, we may never be ready....  better
that we provide a forcing function with relatively soft consequences,
rather than a hard forcing function when the IPv4 address space is
finally exhausted.

						- Ted

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:15:15 -0500

Yes!
    john

--On Tuesday, 18 December, 2007 14:43 -0500 Theodore Tso
<[email-masked]> 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
> meeting will be IPv6. Note just for an hour.  Not just for the
> plenery.  Not just for the social; but FOR THE WHOLE WEEK.  In
> other words, let people who are using the IETF wireless
> network experience what it might be like in some future world
> where the ISP's are only providing IPv6 connectivity and IPv6
> addresses to new customers.
> 
> 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 root on the IETF
> network, and document that fact.  If there needs to be NAT-PT
> bridges to allow IETF'res to get back to their home networks
>...

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:36:17 -0800

> be, and give people early warning and access to them.

	as offical spokesmodel for the IETF in your role 
	as Sgt at Arms, your you SURE you want to advocate
	the IETF abandon its published statement wrt there 
	being ONE ROOT ...

--bill

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:39:41 -0800

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.
 
If I am going to be a labourer I'd prefer to bring along my jointer and table saw and pitch in with the hotel rennovations.

The idea of having a whole week without IPv4 is an invitation for half the membership to decide its the IETF to miss. And its the wrong strategy. The connection between the laptop and the WiFi access point isn't the problem, its the connection between the access point and the Internet where we are comming under pressure.
 
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
2) Get your platform to run IPv6
 
I don't see much real value in finding out that a bunch of Internet experts can manage the second and I see a real downside to discovering that many cannot. 
 
The split network situation is what I expect to see appearing as the IPv4 address pool shrinks. Actually thats the best case scenario, wost case is that all you can find is just IPv4 NAT.
 
My transition strategy would be 
 
1) Demonstrate that everyone can get work done in the split network scenario
 
2) Develop a specification for a T-Box (Transition Box) which is essentially an extension of current access point, cable, DSL modem etc. NAT capabilities. A T-Box can plug into an IPv4 or IPv6 connection and provides a transparent gateway to IPv4 or IPv6 devices - including devices on a mixed v4/v6 network.
 
3) Persuade the ISPs that they should buy equipment that is T-Box capable as it is their best chance of being future proof.
 
4) Write a new architecture document for writing applications that are T-box friendly. This can also incorporate other goodies we would like to deploy like security.

From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tue 18/12/2007 2:41 PM
To: John C Klensin
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary

John,

Jari

---

From: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:39:32 -0800

> "Proposal that the IETF use IPv6 exclusively for 60 minutes causes 

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
---

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:09:28 +0100

> the IETF abandon its published statement wrt there 

Our interpretation of "a sergeant-at-arms appointed by the
Chair is empowered to restrict posting by a person, or of
a thread, when the content is inappropriate and represents
a pattern of abuse" is apparently different, I don't see
an "official spokesmodel" in RFC 3005.  

I've no idea who is a sergeant-at-arms here at the moment,
and Ted certainly didn't post in this role.  Correct me
if I'm wrong, "one root" is an IAB doctrine, isn't it ?
Did the IETF ever bother to confirm it ?

 Frank

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:05:05 -0800

> Did the IETF ever bother to confirm it ?
	my appologies to Ted, you happend to be the nearest 
	lighting rod.

	Frank, to your question.   RFC 3245 section 2.2

--bill

---

From: Aki Niemi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 01:00:30 +0200

ti, 2007-12-18 kello 12:39 -0800, ext Hallam-Baker, Phillip kirjoitti:
> I don't see much real value in finding out that a bunch of Internet
> experts can manage the second and I see a real downside to discovering
> that many cannot. 
>  
> The split network situation is what I expect to see appearing as the
> IPv4 address pool shrinks. Actually thats the best case scenario, wost
> case is that all you can find is just IPv4 NAT.

I think this is a great suggestion. Certainly the types of networks that
IETF meetings have, namely no NAT/FW are elsewhere (read, in the real
world) a rarity. If not to eat our own dogfood, at least making us feel
the same pain Internet users are feeling is a Good Thing.

Other ways to add to the incentives for running IPv6 at the plenary
would be to traffic shape the IPv4 link down to just barely usable
speed, or perhaps restrict the "bad attitude" channel only for
participants over IPv6, and so on.

Cheers,
Aki

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:38:47 -0500

> 	my appologies to Ted, you happend to be the nearest 

Heh.  I hadn't realized how sensitive people are to the whole concept
of "hijacking the root".  To me, I was thinking merely of taking the
official root zone data and making it available on an IPv6 visible
host, on site at the IETF meeting if that's what's necessary to make
things work.  I don't think of that as being particularly
controversial, just an engineering expediency.  What I had in mind is
very different from taking the official root zone data and then adding
or subtracting root entries, quite a different idea of "hijacking the
root".  Perhaps that's what you had in mind?

In any case, I did some more looking into it, and it seems that 5 of
the 13 official root name servers have IPv6 addresses, and while that
doesn't necessarily mean global connectivity (some of them may only
have very limited service to a small IPv6 island), it shouldn't be
*that* hard for the IETF network ops to arrange a one or more
tunnel(s) to root servers with IPv6 addresses.  But in any case, the
point is let's come up with the appropriate engineering solutions so
that an IPv6-only network at an IETF meeting is in fact a viable and
productive resource to the attendees.  And if people continue to
insist that it's not possible, what does that say about IPv6?

As far as my having any authority as an official spokesmodel by virtue
of my Sargeant-at-Arms role, I just got a great big chuckle out of
that.  That title and two dollars will get me a small coffee at
Starbucks!

						- Ted

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:36:34 +1100

> that.  That title and two dollars will get me a small coffee at

	There really isn't connectivity problems with the IPv6
	roots.  I've been using them for years.  They need some
	test traffic. I've also reported to the various operators
	when they have been broken and always got a swift fix as a
	response.

	Only B is playing up at the moment.

% dig -6 soa . @f.root-servers.net +noall +answer
.                       86400   IN      SOA     A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. NSTLD.VERISIGN-GRS.COM. 2007121800 1800 900 604800 86400
% dig -6 soa . @k.root-servers.net +noall +answer
.                       86400   IN      SOA     a.root-servers.net. nstld.verisign-grs.com. 2007121800 1800 900 604800 86400
% dig -6 soa . @m.root-servers.net +noall +answer
.                       86400   IN      SOA     A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. NSTLD.VERISIGN-GRS.COM. 2007121800 1800 900 604800 86400
% dig -6 soa . @f.root-servers.net +noall +answer
.                       86400   IN      SOA     A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. NSTLD.VERISIGN-GRS.COM. 2007121800 1800 900 604800 86400
% dig -6 soa . @b.root-servers.net +noall +answer
;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached
% 

	The problem is getting the AAAA records for them published.
	A local copy of "root-servers.net" with the AAAA records
	added will suffice.  "www.root-servers.org" will supply
	you with the necessary information to construct such a
	zone.

	Note: the root zone remains untouched and all servers
	return the same root zone content.

	Mark

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:41:24 -0500

>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: David Kessens [mailto:[email-masked]]
>  Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 3:40 PM
>  To: Pete Resnick; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]

>  Quite frankly, I could care less about this whole experiment: 

I completely agree... which suggests to me that during this experiment the
proper place to be is 

A.

 http://www.genosteaks.com/ 

or 

B.

http://www.patskingofsteaks.com/Site/Welcome.html

I have no idea if IP access is available at these locations nor do I care.

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:06:00 -0500

> 	you with the necessary information to construct such a

Ok, so I'm sure this is a REALLY dumb question, but what has prevented
anyone from taking the informatoin from www.root-servers.org and
creating a named.boot file with both the A and AAAA records for the
root nameservers, and started telling people to install it?

Would there be a downside if, say, the Ubuntu and Fedora Linux
distributions started shipping a /etc/bind/db.root file that included
the AAAA records for the root name servers?  Are the IPv6 addresses
stable enough they it would be a good thing to get them widely
installed in thousands if not millions of machines all over the
Internet?  Because if they are suitably stable, it wouldn't be that
hard to arrange....

						- Ted

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:20:32 +1100

> root nameservers, and started telling people to install it?

	named.boot is not used after the priming succeeds.

	I override the data using zones.

        zone "b.root-servers.net" {
                type master;
                file "master/b.root-servers.net";
                notify no;
                allow-query { localhost; };
        };

        zone "h.root-servers.net" {
                type master;
                file "master/h.root-servers.net";
                notify no;
                allow-query { localhost; };
        };

        zone "k.root-servers.net" {
                type master;
                file "master/k.root-servers.net";
                notify no;
                allow-query { localhost; };
        };

        zone "m.root-servers.net" {
                type master;
                file "master/m.root-servers.net";
                notify no;
                allow-query { localhost; };
        };

	Which results in output like this.

; <<>> DiG 9.3.4-P1 <<>> ns .
;; global options:  printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 5807
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 13, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 10

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;.				IN	NS

;; ANSWER SECTION:
.			431596	IN	NS	D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.			431596	IN	NS	A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.			431596	IN	NS	J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.			431596	IN	NS	G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.			431596	IN	NS	H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.			431596	IN	NS	C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.			431596	IN	NS	K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.			431596	IN	NS	E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.			431596	IN	NS	I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.			431596	IN	NS	B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.			431596	IN	NS	L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.			431596	IN	NS	F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.			431596	IN	NS	M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.	3600	IN	A	192.228.79.201
K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.	3600	IN	A	193.0.14.129
F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.	3600	IN	A	192.5.5.241
H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.	3600	IN	A	128.63.2.53
M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.	3600	IN	A	202.12.27.33
B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.	3600	IN	AAAA	2001:478:65::53
K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.	3600	IN	AAAA	2001:7fd::1
F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.	3600	IN	AAAA	2001:500::1035
H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.	3600	IN	AAAA	2001:500:1::803f:235
M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.	3600	IN	AAAA	2001:dc3::35

;; Query time: 2 msec
;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1)
;; WHEN: Wed Dec 19 14:18:40 2007
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 448

> Internet?  Because if they are suitably stable, it wouldn't be that

	I would *not* recommend distributions doing this.

	This is a "do this if you know what you are doing" activity
	and you accept the risks. 

	e.g. you need to actually track address changes etc.

	Mark

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:00:12 +1300

On 2007-12-18 12:49, Dave Crocker wrote:
> This is interesting.  People seem to be confused about formal 
> affiliation with IETF processes, versus independent activities that are 
> a useful adjunct to IETF work.
> 
> Let's be clear:  When an activity that relates to working group product 
> is not organized within the working group -- you know, overseen by the 
> chairs, minutes written, and other the other group process stuff of an 
> open IETF effort -- then it is not an IETF effort.

Correct. Not even if it takes place in the same hotel as the IETF
at the same time as the IETF, and not even if its results are later
used in an IETF interop report. But whoever is running the activity
had better say loud and clear "this is the not an IETF activity
and not subject to IETF rules".

     Brian
> 
> Apparently some folk thought I was making a slam at the IETF when I 
> noted we don't do interoperability tests.  It wasn't a slam.  The 
> lifecycle of a successful protocol involves quite a few phases, with 
> quite a few participants, at the micro and macro level.  The IETF is a 
> factor in only some of these.
> 
> But as anyone who has run a successful interoperability event for a 
> successful protocol knows, you don't just declare a time and place for a 
> party and see what happens.  That's the way the upcoming plenary was 
> presented to us.
> 
> At a minimum, it demonstrated that serious events for exploring utility 
> and problems are not commonly within the purview of IETF-specific 
> operations.
> 
> 
> d/

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 00:05:36 -0500

> 	named.boot is not used after the priming succeeds.

Ah, right.  So that's why we would need to hijack the root zone
information --- so we can add the AAAA records to the root zones.

OK, next stupid question?  Why aren't the AAAA records being published
in the official root zone today?  Is there some good reason, like say
the size of the records returned for the root zone being too big?  And
is something being done to address whatever reasons might exist,
whether they are at the technical or political layer?

						- Ted

---

From: Franck Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:17:49 +1200

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% or 15% of federal agencies are actually buying IPv6 service"

*It is my understanding that IETF network has been IPv4 and IPv6 during
most meetings for a while now and more often with access to an IPv6
backbone (no tunnel)?

I tried to configure my laptop at IETF70 to use IPv6, I could see my
cards with valid IPv6 addresses, but it was not obvious to get it all
working... So decided to report it for later...

I'm very curious on the results of this experiment. What is 30mn to talk
about IPv6 when all are focused on getting it to work on their own
machines. May be people will go back with IPv6 enabled laptops where
they can test if their applications are working on IPv6 too.

Key people can be prepared, the jabber rooms must be IPv6 and IPv4
accessible already, so it means people outside the meeting will be able
to get to them with IPv4, people at the meeting will have to use IPv6 to
get to them. Just ensure that the rapporteurs are familiar with IPv6.

ICANN can be involved, to ensure the DNS works before the experiment, etc...

Etc...

-- 
Franck Martin
ICT Specialist
[email-masked]
SOPAC, Fiji
GPG Key fingerprint = 44A4 8AE4 392A 3B92 FDF9  D9C6 BE79 9E60 81D9 1320
"Toute connaissance est une reponse a une question" G.Bachelard

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:27:38 -0800

> whether they are at the technical or political layer?

	indeed.
	I point to the the RSSAC(*) meeting minutes from Chicago
	and Vancouver for the ICANN statements as to why the AAAA 
	records for the root servers have not been added to date.

	e.g. its not a technical problem.

	the good news is that the issue is on the ICANN board meeting
	for the 18th.  One can only hope that the pending requests
	will be approved ... then the IETF/IAB won't have to have the
	problem of publicly supporting a unified root/namespace and
	practically having to hijack the space to get the functionality
	desired.

(*)  http://www.rssac.org

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:25:42 -0800

> people who decide they are better qualified to tell me how to

I promised myself I would not add to this thread but .... the only  
thing I might add to the wise words so far is if we run this  
experiment we are going to have some people depressed by one or more of:

a) how hard it is to use IPv6
b) how easy it is to use IPv6 yet no one is using it
c) loss of network connectivity for 30-60 minutes
d) how long this email thread is
e) not enough cookies

The most practically way I can see to help these people would be to  
run Scotch BOF at the same time as this experiment so that nearby  
alcohol was widely available even if the internet was not. If nothing  
else it will make for interesting toasts.

---

From: Tony Finch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:17:44 +0000

> 	Only B is playing up at the moment.

That is not an IPv6 problem.

Tony.
-- 
f.a.n.finch  <[email-masked]>  http://dotat.at/
PORTLAND PLYMOUTH: EAST 5 OR 6, OCCASIONALLY 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH. MAINLY
FAIR. MODERATE OR GOOD.

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:27:04 +0100

> 	records for the root servers have not been added to date.

http://www.rssac.org/meetings/04-08/RSSAC28.pdf :

4 - AAAA support - David
  The report was received and the technical issues are not an issue -  
this is a policy issue and no one from the
2
policy group is here. The question is raised, what else does the IANA  
need and when can it ask? The IANA GM does
3
not have the right questions to ask internally. Who are we/IANA  
waiting on?  We are waiting on the executive staff at
4
ICANN.  Not clear if there are other hurdles to jump after that is done.
5

http://www.rssac.org/meetings/04-08/rssac29.pdf :

IPv6 status: (Bill Manning)

2
Not much has changed since our last meeting.  At least four of the  
root server operators have demonstrated IPv6
3
capability and have formally requested that ICANN add them to the  
root.  This is based on the RSSAC/SSAC joint
4
recommendation that said that this is OK to do. At the last meeting,  
the IANA general manager said that it's in
5
ICANN's executive/policy committee.  We'd really like some feedback  
from either IANA or ICANN about when the
6
requests will be processed. A formal request will be sent from RSSAC  
to ICANN asking for the requests to be
7
processed. This will not be a public announcement.
8

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:16:18 -0000

> 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 root on the 
> IETF network, and document that fact.  If there needs to be 
> NAT-PT bridges to allow IETF'res to get back to their home 
> networks connected to ISP's that don't yet offer IPv6 
> connectivty, then let there be NAT-PT bridges --- and 
> document them.  If various Windows, Macintosh, and Linux 
> laptops need special configuration so to work around other 
> problems, then document what the workarounds should be, and 
> give people early warning and access to them.

This is the best suggestion that I have seen in this whole thread.

Build it, test it, get it ready for production and then unleash
it on the IETF themselves. All documented so that any network
operator who claims that it is impossible can be given a copy
of the recipe book.

IPv6 could have been ready to go years ago, but people got used
to pushing it down the priority list thinking that it was a long
term thing and it would be easier to deal with it later. That was
true to a point, but now IPv4 exhaustion means that IPv6 is no
longer a long term thing that can be repeatedly deprioritised. We
have to deal with it now, even if everything isn't as ready as we
had hoped.

> (Or maybe the
> IPv4 network can be made available over the wireless on a 
> separate SSID with a fee attached,

That sounds a bit draconian. Since it is pretty straightforward to
tunnel IPv4 over IPv6, give them the IPv4 SSID and a walled-garden
web server where they register for free use of the tunneling service.
Then monitor your outgoing traffic (100% IPv6) and record how much
of it uses this tunnel service.

For this to work, it needs to be virtually painless for all users
including those who have a pure IPv4 environment and no capability
to use IPv6 in any form whatsoever.

--Michael Dillon

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:27:55 -0500

Wow, that is a rather.... lackadisical attitude being shown by the
ICANN, isn't it?  I can't help thinking that if Jon Postel were still
around, things would be moving a tad bit faster --- i.e., measured in
minutes rather than at least months.  Hmm, perhaps years; on an IANA
page I see a paper authored Ronald van der Pol and some other RIPE
folks indicating that they had shown it was safe to add AAAA records
to the root zone, published October 2003.

One would hope that they will act by the December 18th ICANN board
meeting, and that any other bureaucratic hurdles would be addressed
sooner rather than later.  But if not, as ugly as it would have to be
for the IETF to have to substitute root zone records just for the
purpose of adding AAAA records for IPv6 DNS root zone servers for the
March 2008 meeting, and as unfortunate as a precedent as that might
set, it will have meant that ICANN will have dithered for NINE MONTHS
over what seems to be a simple issue of adding IPv6 records, which
means something is seriously wrong over at ICANN, and we should just
fix the problem the way engineers know how to fix the problem, and let
the political problem fix itself... whenever.  After all, if waiting
at least 9 months hasn't helped, is there any evidence that waiting
another 9 months would help any more?

At the end of the day, either we're serious about IPv6 or we're not.

       	      	       	      	    	    - Ted

P.S.  Funny, looking at the ICANN board, I have to say that I'm
surprised.  The board contains names like Harald Alvaestrand, Steve
Crocker, Thomas Narten, in addition to the usual Lawyers and VC's.

P.P.S.  Obviously, this is me speaking as an individual, not with any
IETF hat on, or on behalf of my employer....

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:33:16 -0500

On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 07:27:55AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> But if not, as ugly as it would have to be
> March 2008 meeting

Let me make it clear that I would only be suggesting this on the IETF
conference network, and not making any more public than that.  i.e.,
doing what is necessary to make a fully functional IPv6 network.

This is really no different than what many companies do to the DNS for
their intranet --- which maybe is a horrible idea from a BIND
perspective, but is in fact quite common (where www.example.com or
w3.example.com might look very different inside or outside the intranet).

And if it causes some embarassing articles about ICANN to show up in
the trade press, I guess at this point I wouldn't mind, terribly.

    	  	   	    	       	 - Ted

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:30:31 -0800

At Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:39:32 -0800,
> for backup connectivity during *any* outage cannot be taken serious.

Of course one can survive 60 minutes of network outage. I could
also survive a broken finger, but I'm still carefeful when I
use a hammer. Just because people could survive an outage is
no reason to inflict one on ourselves.

-Ekr

---

From: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:07:10 -0800

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:

This issue will only develop into an outage if you bring the wrong
survival tools: I suggest you leave your hammer home and make sure
that you can use ipv6 only. There is no rocket science here. People
have done this before.

David Kessens
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
---

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:14:13 -0800 (PST)

>    make ipv6 working, I suspect one can easily borrow one from the

OK, since we're so close to the holidays and so far off topic already: 
Clearly you've never dealt with construction crews. "Easily" is not a 
concept they are familiar with ;-)

Ole

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:17:17 -0800

At Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:07:10 -0800,
> that you can use ipv6 only. There is no rocket science here. People

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 another
one. When we were in YVR, there were water turbidity issues and people
were told not to drink the water out of the tap. The hotel supplied
bottled water. If we were to hear tomorrow that due to the renovations
the hotel water was to be unpotable, would your answer be that they
should fix that or that each IETFer should bring a survival tool
in the form of a water filter?

-Ekr

---

From: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:39:53 -0800

> in the form of a water filter?

If water problems occur regularly, it seems prudent to bring a
waterfilter. If you are traveling and experience frequent problems with
connectivity and you believe that 60 minutes without it could lead to
fatalities it might be wise to bring backup gear.

However, this is really beside the point: there is not going to be any
break in connectivity, there will be plenty of ipv6 available.

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 on
more important topics like to get ICANN to have ipv6 and DNSSEC root
service available before the next IETF meeting.

David Kessens
---

---

From: David Conrad <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:33:29 -0800

Ted,

We're serious about IPv6.

Unless something really unexpected occurs (e.g., the Internet breaks  
when we insert AAAAs into the root hints), IPv6 addresses will be  
available for root service via the normal mechanisms significantly  
before the next IETF.

Regards,
-drc

---

From: Dan York <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:53:44 -0500

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  
newbies?  What are they going to do during this time?

At IETF 70, there was a question raised in one of the plenaries  
asking "How many of you are here for the first time?" and a  
significant number of hands went up.  So let's look at this proposed  
IPv4 outage *during the plenary* from their perspective.  Now, these  
newcomers may or may not have been subscribed to IETF mailing lists.   
They may or may not have attended the Sunday "intro to IETF for  
newcomers" session.  They may or may not in fact be technical folks.   
They are probably still trying to figure out how all this works and  
why these people are humming, etc.

So now we go into one of the plenary sessions and it is announced  
that "we will now shut down IPv4 and use only IPv6".  The newcomer  
notices that:
1. A good percentage of the audience now dive into their laptops and  
become engrossed in diagnosing how their system works with IPv6. Side  
conversations are starting everywhere and occasional shouts of "Aha!"  
emerge from random groups.
2. Another percentage gets up and leaves in search of cookies.
3. Some percentage who missed reading the emails are suddenly upset  
because they lost their IPv4 connectivity.
4. Some percentage pops in their EVDO/EDGE/whatever cards and  
continues along as they were before doing their work and completely  
ignoring the plenary speakers.
5. Some percentage never showed up at the plenary because they went  
to join Richard Shockey at a local steak house.
6. Non-technical users or others who did not subscribe to IETF  
mailing lists are sitting there dumbfounded with a deer-caught-in-the- 
headlights look wondering what the heck is going on and if this has  
anything to do with the hums.
7. NO ONE is paying attention to the speaker(s) in front of the room  
during this part of the plenary.

Now maybe the newcomer is all excited about IPv6 and so plunges into  
the technical troubleshooting.  Maybe they go look for cookies or  
steak.  Maybe they sit there dumb-founded.  Probably they are left  
wondering what the point of this IETF "plenary" session really was.

I don't dispute that such an exercise could be an interesting  
experiment in IPv6 connectivity (and one in which I would join),  
although in many cases I think we can already know the outcome.  I  
just question the wisdom of doing it during the *plenary*.  It would  
seem to me to be a great exercise to do at some other point during  
the week when the people who care can attend and identify issues,  
work through them, etc.  Or we do as Ted suggested and just run an  
entire event with only IPv6 wireless. (and count how many people are  
using EVDO/EDGE cards!)

It goes back to a more fundamental question - what is the purpose of  
the plenary?  What information do we want to get across to attendees  
to the session?  (And if we *do* plan an IPv4 outage, what is going  
to be talked about during the time of the outage?)

My 2 cents, (now worth less than when I lived in Canada)
Dan

-- 
Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology
Office of the CTO    Voxeo Corporation     [email-masked]
Phone: +1-407-455-5859  Skype: danyork  http://www.voxeo.com
Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com  http://www.disruptivetelephony.com

Bring your web applications to the phone.
Find out how at http://evolution.voxeo.com

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:56:37 +0100

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, which  
may give us valuable information in and of its own, and hopefully, it  
will show one or more of the following:

- how easy it is to run IPv6
- where the problem areas are with running IPv6
- what still needs to be done in standards, implementation and operation

There was a suggestion to rate limit IPv4 or NAT it heavily rather  
than turn it off. That completely misses the point. As long as there  
is IPv4, you don't see what's missing from IPv6.

Another suggestion was to charge more for IPv4. I love that idea. Give  
everyone who only needs IPv6 access a discount on the meeting fee.  :-)

But I think what we really need is to get some people together to  
define the parameters of this experiment and to work out what's needed  
to prepare for it.

In the mean time, I'm interested to hear about jabber clients that can  
work in an IPv6-only environment (even though jabber.ietf.org doesn't  
have an IPv6 address).

---

From: "Ed Juskevicius" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:16:59 -0500

What if someone took the initiative to organize a new "newbie training"
session on Sunday in Philadelphia, entitled something like "getting your
laptop ready for the planned IPv4 outage experiment on Wednesday night"
?
 
Would that reduce the potentially negative perspectives that newbies
would take home after the meeting?
 
Just a thought ...
 
Regards,
 
Ed Juskevicius
[email-masked]

From: Dan York [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 12:54 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Let's look at it from an IETF newbie's perspective... Re: IPv4
Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary

Let me, though, add another perspective.  What about all the newbies?
What are they going to do during this time?

At IETF 70, there was a question raised in one of the plenaries asking
"How many of you are here for the first time?" and a significant number
of hands went up.  So let's look at this proposed IPv4 outage *during
the plenary* from their perspective.  Now, these newcomers may or may
not have been subscribed to IETF mailing lists.  They may or may not
have attended the Sunday "intro to IETF for newcomers" session.  They
may or may not in fact be technical folks.  They are probably still
trying to figure out how all this works and why these people are
humming, etc.

So now we go into one of the plenary sessions and it is announced that
"we will now shut down IPv4 and use only IPv6".  The newcomer notices
that:
1. A good percentage of the audience now dive into their laptops and
become engrossed in diagnosing how their system works with IPv6. Side
conversations are starting everywhere and occasional shouts of "Aha!"
emerge from random groups.
2. Another percentage gets up and leaves in search of cookies.
3. Some percentage who missed reading the emails are suddenly upset
because they lost their IPv4 connectivity.
4. Some percentage pops in their EVDO/EDGE/whatever cards and continues
along as they were before doing their work and completely ignoring the
plenary speakers.
5. Some percentage never showed up at the plenary because they went to
join Richard Shockey at a local steak house.
6. Non-technical users or others who did not subscribe to IETF mailing
lists are sitting there dumbfounded with a deer-caught-in-the-headlights
look wondering what the heck is going on and if this has anything to do
with the hums.
7. NO ONE is paying attention to the speaker(s) in front of the room
during this part of the plenary.

Now maybe the newcomer is all excited about IPv6 and so plunges into the
technical troubleshooting.  Maybe they go look for cookies or steak.
Maybe they sit there dumb-founded.  Probably they are left wondering
what the point of this IETF "plenary" session really was.

I don't dispute that such an exercise could be an interesting experiment
in IPv6 connectivity (and one in which I would join), although in many
cases I think we can already know the outcome.  I just question the
wisdom of doing it during the *plenary*.  It would seem to me to be a
great exercise to do at some other point during the week when the people
who care can attend and identify issues, work through them, etc.  Or we
do as Ted suggested and just run an entire event with only IPv6
wireless. (and count how many people are using EVDO/EDGE cards!)

It goes back to a more fundamental question - what is the purpose of the
plenary?  What information do we want to get across to attendees to the
session?  (And if we *do* plan an IPv4 outage, what is going to be
talked about during the time of the outage?)

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:47:06 -0300

Good idea, I will be happy to work on that session and I¹m sure other folks
from the EDU team will like the idea.

Regards,
Jordi

De: Ed Juskevicius <[email-masked]>
Responder a: <[email-masked]>
Fecha: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:16:59 -0500
Para: Dan York <[email-masked]>
CC: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
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 Plenary

What if someone took the initiative to organize a new "newbie training"
session on Sunday in Philadelphia, entitled something like "getting your
laptop ready for the planned IPv4 outage experiment on Wednesday night" ?
 
Would that reduce the potentially negative perspectives that newbies would
take home after the meeting?
 
Just a thought ...
 
Regards,
 
Ed Juskevicius
[email-masked]

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 newbies?  What
are they going to do during this time?

At IETF 70, there was a question raised in one of the plenaries asking "How
many of you are here for the first time?" and a significant number of hands
went up.  So let's look at this proposed IPv4 outage *during the plenary*
from their perspective.  Now, these newcomers may or may not have been
subscribed to IETF mailing lists.  They may or may not have attended the
Sunday "intro to IETF for newcomers" session.  They may or may not in fact
be technical folks.  They are probably still trying to figure out how all
this works and why these people are humming, etc.

So now we go into one of the plenary sessions and it is announced that "we
will now shut down IPv4 and use only IPv6".  The newcomer notices that:
1. A good percentage of the audience now dive into their laptops and become
engrossed in diagnosing how their system works with IPv6. Side conversations
are starting everywhere and occasional shouts of "Aha!" emerge from random
groups.
2. Another percentage gets up and leaves in search of cookies.
3. Some percentage who missed reading the emails are suddenly upset because
they lost their IPv4 connectivity.
4. Some percentage pops in their EVDO/EDGE/whatever cards and continues
along as they were before doing their work and completely ignoring the
plenary speakers.
5. Some percentage never showed up at the plenary because they went to join
Richard Shockey at a local steak house.
6. Non-technical users or others who did not subscribe to IETF mailing lists
are sitting there dumbfounded with a deer-caught-in-the-headlights look
wondering what the heck is going on and if this has anything to do with the
hums.
7. NO ONE is paying attention to the speaker(s) in front of the room during
this part of the plenary.

Now maybe the newcomer is all excited about IPv6 and so plunges into the
technical troubleshooting.  Maybe they go look for cookies or steak.  Maybe
they sit there dumb-founded.  Probably they are left wondering what the
point of this IETF "plenary" session really was.

I don't dispute that such an exercise could be an interesting experiment in
IPv6 connectivity (and one in which I would join), although in many cases I
think we can already know the outcome.  I just question the wisdom of doing
it during the *plenary*.  It would seem to me to be a great exercise to do
at some other point during the week when the people who care can attend and
identify issues, work through them, etc.  Or we do as Ted suggested and just
run an entire event with only IPv6 wireless. (and count how many people are
using EVDO/EDGE cards!)

It goes back to a more fundamental question - what is the purpose of the
plenary?  What information do we want to get across to attendees to the
session?  (And if we *do* plan an IPv4 outage, what is going to be talked
about during the time of the outage?)

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:15:16 -0500

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 ?

Regards
Marshall

On Dec 19, 2007, at 1:47 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

> Good idea, I will be happy to work on that session and I’m sure  
> other folks from the EDU team will like the idea.
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
>
>
>
> 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 Plenary
>
> What if someone took the initiative to organize a new "newbie  
> training" session on Sunday in Philadelphia, entitled something  
> like "getting your laptop ready for the planned IPv4 outage  
> experiment on Wednesday night" ?
>
> Would that reduce the potentially negative perspectives that  
> newbies would take home after the meeting?
>
> Just a thought ...
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Juskevicius
> [email-masked]
>
> Subject: 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 PR point-of- 
> view this was not a great idea.
>
> significant number of hands went up.  So let's look at this  
> proposed IPv4 outage *during the plenary* from their perspective.   
> Now, these newcomers may or may not have been subscribed to IETF  
> mailing lists.  They may or may not have attended the Sunday "intro  
> to IETF for newcomers" session.  They may or may not in fact be  
> technical folks.  They are probably still trying to figure out how  
> all this works and why these people are humming, etc.
>
> 1. A good percentage of the audience now dive into their laptops  
> and become engrossed in diagnosing how their system works with  
> IPv6. Side conversations are starting everywhere and occasional  
> shouts of "Aha!" emerge from random groups.
> mailing lists are sitting there dumbfounded with a deer-caught-in- 
> the-headlights look wondering what the heck is going on and if this  
> has anything to do with the hums.
> 7. NO ONE is paying attention to the speaker(s) in front of the  
> room during this part of the plenary.
>
> Now maybe the newcomer is all excited about IPv6 and so plunges  
> into the technical troubleshooting.  Maybe they go look for cookies  
> or steak.  Maybe they sit there dumb-founded.  Probably they are  
> left wondering what the point of this IETF "plenary" session really  
> was.
>
> just question the wisdom of doing it during the *plenary*.  It  
> would seem to me to be a great exercise to do at some other point  
> during the week when the people who care can attend and identify  
> issues, work through them, etc.  Or we do as Ted suggested and just  
> run an entire event with only IPv6 wireless. (and count how many  
> people are using EVDO/EDGE cards!)
>
> It goes back to a more fundamental question - what is the purpose  
> of the plenary?  What information do we want to get across to  
> attendees to the session?  (And if we *do* plan an IPv4 outage,  
> what is going to be talked about during the time of the outage?)
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be  
> privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for  
> the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the  
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying,  
> distribution or use of the contents of this information, including  
> attached files, is prohibited.
>

---

From: Matt Mathis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:37:39 -0500 (EST)

> 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 only, for individuals who don't 
have enough leverage to move their home institutions.)

The point is not to cause people to debug during the IETF, but to cause 
people to notice deployment problems and to have them fixed by the following
IETF.

Thanks,
--MM--

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:39:51 -0800

> my EVDO card for an hour :-) ). But this entire conversation has been

Exactly my thoughts as I read the thread (though I have made a point of
having AAAA in my host file for the things I care about, so I am not
worried). It is really bizarre to watch the reaction to the thought that we
might 'need to be serious about using IPv6'. If we could only get the IESG
to get serious about killing off working groups that are still focused on
IPv4 ... ;)

> such that applications can run.

While you are concerned about infrastructure, I am -much- more concerned
about lack of app support. If is fairly easy to fix a handful of root
servers, but it is much more difficult to find apps that are capable of
working in an IPv6-only environment, let alone get them widely distributed. 

> I'm somewhere between depressed and amused.

I have all but given up on any kind of smooth transition. The ongoing
stand-off between the ISP's and Content Providers over who will move first
ensures that this will be an ugly last-minute fiasco. The lack of
wide-spread app support further ensures that there is no way to avoid having
the consumer be very aware of which version of the protocol they are
running, and what each product supports. Here again this thread is very
instructive. If the app community had built agnostic apps years ago, the
agnostic stacks in the current laptops would transparently deal with the
outage (assuming the roots get fixed). Instead there is a panic by people
(scanning the list mostly in the apps community) that should have been
serious in the past, but have procrastinated. 

So for that I applaud the announced outage for disturbing the cozy corner of
ignorance that people have been hiding in, but ... as much as I want to see
IPv6 in wide-spread use, I have to agree with John, Dave, and Eric, this is
not the right experiment. It is not right because it does nothing positive,
other than the threat -maybe- spurring some action. A more realistic
experiment would be to run the entire week with a double-nat for IPv4 (and
nats between the access points to simulate consumer-to-consumer
configurations), where the most public one has absolutely no provision for
punching holes (because realistically an ISP is not going to punch inbound
holes for its customers, or allow them to). Also make sure that there is
only 1 public IPv4 address so the issues of port overloading & exhaustion
are completely exposed. The IPv4-forever crowd will see the failings of
their claim that; n-layers of nat will just work because n=1 does for a
limited subset of applications when the end user has control over hole
punching. 

The resulting headline would be something like: The IETF tried to live in
the upcoming world of multiple layers of IPv4 nat and failed ... Those that
didn't want to suffer that fate used IPv6 enabled apps and moved into a
better future.

I am not opposed to doing an IPv6-only network, but that should be well
planned (~ 1 year in advance), and have the expected outcome of IPv6 as a
success, rather than the known outcome of the upcoming meeting where more
than half would just be cut off without IPv4. It should have happened a
couple of years ago so the IESG would know the state of the world, but
better late than never so tell people now that Fall-08, or Spring-09 will
have a significant portion of the network as IPv6-only, giving them
sufficient time to do real preparation, rather than just panic work-arounds.
Leave IPv4 up only for the external audio feeds, and one AP near the support
desk for dealing with a day-job crisis. With enough time to do real prep,
the result of the experiment will have some meaning. Otherwise it is just
going to create negative headlines.

Tony

---

From: Elwyn Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:59:27 +0000

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 1Mbps not 802,11b 'standard') ).  It 
has taken us more or less 23 meetings to get to the point where 
essentially Wi-Fi 'just worked' measured by traffic on the attendees 
mailing list - it was sometimes a sore trial when 17 ad hoc networks 
stopped you connecting to the outside world, but we have learnt how to 
do it - and the vendors and operators have (I suspect) learnt a good 
deal in parallel.

Also one or two ISPs have actually embraced IPv6.  Mine (a smallish 
outfit in the UK) has done so.  To my shame I haven't exploited their 
capabilities yet - my New Year's resolution is to fix this situation.  I 
could run native IPv6 if I find an ADSL modem/router that handles it but 
in the meantime I can run a tunnel into my firewall box and go native 
IPv6 elsewhere. Ot will be an interesting experiment and I should be 
ready to handle any experiments at IETF. Have a look at 
http://www.aaisp.net/aa/aaisp/ipv6.html

Regards
Elwyn

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:10:56 +0200

> 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

Actually, I have some trust on the fine people in the ICANN board and I
would expect them to get their stuff in order soon. In any case, we
don't make those decisions on this list.

Focusing a little bit on what we can have an effect on: what would it
take for IETF work -related communications to be possible via IPv6? And
what can we do to increase the number of participants that can deal with
IPv6?

Here are some items, send mail if you have something to add or change:

- IETF web sites to fully IPv6 capable (not all are; I have a list
somewhere)
- Same for the related websites (iab.org, iesg.org, iana.org,
rfc-editor.org,
maybe some tools if not all of them are there yet)
- Datatracker (no AAAA enabled at this time, but should be doable)
- Jabber to work on IPv6 (I have no idea what it takes to do this)
- Training for the IPv6 newbies
- What each of us can do in our own organizations for our VPN, mail etc

Jari

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:18:13 -0800

On Dec 19, 2007, at 11:39 AM, Tony Hain wrote:

> If we could only get the IESG

Suggestions of WGs?

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:19:26 -0500

>>>>> "Tony" == Tony Hain <[email-masked]> 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 for IPv4 (and nats between the
    Tony> access points to simulate consumer-to-consumer
    Tony> configurations), where the most public one has absolutely no
    Tony> provision for punching holes (because realistically an ISP
    Tony> is not going to punch inbound holes for its customers, or
    Tony> allow them to). 

I strongly support this experiment and believe it would be a really
good idea to run.  I do think behave-compatible nats should be used,
but besides that, I think the experiment you propose is far more
valuable than the v6-only experiment.

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:56:50 -0800

> 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 focused on nat signaling)

there are probably more, but closing these would be a good start and set an
example

Tony

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:05:44 -0800

+1
 
The press reaction is likely to be better as well.
 
The only point to doing the IPv6 only approach is if you want to demonstrate that it is entirely impractical and drill it into folks heads that we need to be more realistic in our approach here.
 
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 to it.

From: Sam Hartman [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wed 19/12/2007 3:19 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 'Pete Resnick'; 'IETF Chair'; [email-masked]; 'John C Klensin'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:09:20 -0800

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 working group because the  
examples in its documents are IPv4 seems a little presumptuous.  
Closing a working group because we disagree with what appear to us to  
be their assumptions seems a bit presumptuous.

I'm all for closing working groups that are moribund. If a working  
group is in process and is supporting a constituency that addresses a  
business requirement, I'm not sure I see the wisdom.

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:10:43 -0800

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. 

There is lots of noise about ISPs just putting up massive nat farms to push
their customers out, but when it comes right down to it there is no way that
will work for anything but the most trivial client apps. All of the
assumptions about nat working today are built around local control of the
mappings. When that mapping function has to move to a third party, all bets
are off. Worse, when that third party has strong disincentives which keep
them from allowing their customers to punch holes, there is no chance that
apps will work. ISPs are disincented by even the simple issue of
after-the-fact diagnostics being more complicated by dynamic mappings, let
alone the problem of conflict resolution between customers. 

Behave compatible nats are a nice concept for enterprises with multiple
levels of internal nat, but third-party trust issues will kill any real
deployment of a signaling based approach. 

Tony

> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 12:19 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: 'IETF Chair'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 'John C Klensin';
> [email-masked]; 'Pete Resnick'; [email-masked]

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 23:14:51 +0200

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 consider Alain's slides from v6ops/nanog in
> that regard. Closing an application working group because the examples
> in its documents are IPv4 seems a little presumptuous. Closing a
> working group because we disagree with what appear to us to be their
> assumptions seems a bit presumptuous.
>

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:19:03 -0800

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 to it.

Since you are the one that is routinely taking the operator's position, why
should we allow punching holes in the IETF nat when that will never happen
in a real ISP? No ISP is going to trust their customer base to modify the
configuration of their infrastructure, so whatever the IETF experiment ends
up being has to mimic that reality. 

The only exception I would make is to route the audio streams around the nat
so people that can't attend are not completely cut off. Other than that, if
you are there you are living the future. IPv6 plus multiple layers of
IPv4-nat, with trust boundary issues included.

Tony

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:27:26 -0500

Tony> Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
    >> 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> Since you are the one that is routinely taking the
    Tony> operator's position, why should we allow punching holes in
    Tony> the IETF nat when that will never happen in a real ISP? No
    Tony> ISP is going to trust their customer base to modify the
    Tony> configuration of their infrastructure, so whatever the IETF
    Tony> experiment ends up being has to mimic that reality.

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.

Why will ISPs support this?  Because their customers voip phones and
games will want it.

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:28:38 -0500

>>>>> "Tony" == Tony Hain <[email-masked]> 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 documents I've read don't talk about signaling a NAT.  Are
we talking about the same working group?

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:40:27 -0800

There is a difference between 'taking the operators position' and deciding which battles to fight.
 
The battle to fight here is to maintain the ability to exchange peer-to-peer audio and video conferencing streams. That is a battle that I beleive can be won given the right marketting approach.

From: Tony Hain [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wed 19/12/2007 4:19 PM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; 'Sam Hartman'
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 'John C Klensin'; 'IETF Chair'; [email-masked]; 'Pete Resnick'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary

Tony

---

From: Brian Dickson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:49:17 -0500

> RSVP as an endpoint qos tool. 
(Here's the problem with taking one result, and attempting to apply it
to another problem space:
RSVP was necessarily an in-band protocol, and tied intrinsically to the
local provider's network.)

There is *nothing* in IPv6->IPv4 that is *strictly* tied to the provider
of IPv6 services.
It may be the case that ISPs try to "scare" their customers into
believing otherwise, but that is not a technical issue.

So, while the "third party" problem is a concern where the third party
has a de-facto monopoly,
the counter-argument under the IPv6 access model exists. If you can get
anywhere on the IPv6 Internet,
you can get to *any* third-party IPv6->IPv4 gateway, limited only by the
ability to reach & interest
of the third party, e.g. someone offering it as a service.

Since IPv6 access is no-NAT to/from the IPv6 DFZ, unlike much of IPv4,
there is a level playing
field for network-facing services, such as IPv6->IPv4 access, and
IPv6-oriented ALGs.
Mail relaying, for instance, via MX-IPv4 to SMTP-IPv6.

The rest of your argument falls off the rails, as soon as the "third
party" changes from "_the_"
third party, to "_a_" third party.

In an IPv6 world, ISPs can once again be differentiated to include
ISPs-lite, Internet Access Providers.

I'd suggest that for the experiment planned for IETF-71, that interested
folks set up *competing* IPv6->IPv4 services,
kind of like a mock marketplace, and including mock advertising on a
special (IPv6-only) web site for just this purpose.
Then the results would have multiple dimensions, comparative results
much like an actual ba*k o*f.

Brian Dickson

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:56:43 -0800

Some points:
 
1) Winning a battle with the ISPs is hard but it is much easier to persuade the consumer that when they buy a NAT box they should get one that BEHAVEs, if we win the battle at the WiFi/Cable router stage we can push out the requirement as an expectation for ISP deployed NAT farms.
 
2) Branding is the key. Consider the case that the following Internet service levels are defined:
 
Internet 2: Restricted
 
Internet 2: Basic
 
Internet 2: Advanced
 
Even before I state what the requirements for the levels are it is pretty clear that an ISP that offers only Restricted service is at a sales disadvantage to an ISP that offers Basic. 

The Mappings I would propose are:
 
Restricted - IPv4 service only through dumb NAT with no means of accepting inbound service connections. 
 
Basic - A full /96 IPv6 subnet or better plus legacy IPv4 service, either a publlic IPv4 address or through an intelligent NAT with punchthrough.
 
Advanced - Same as Basic but a /88 plus a static IPv4 address and the ability to accept unrestricted inbound services.

The point of defining restricted is not to promote its use but to deprecate that level of service. Most users would opt for the Basic level of service in preference to advanced which is also what we want as we want to graceously manage the depletion of the IPv4 pool.

That is my bottom line, the problem in my view is not how we manage the IPv6 transition, its how we manage the depletion of the IPv4 pool in a manner that achieves the end result that benefits everyone. Deployment of IPv6 is a consequence, not the stakeholder's actual objective.

From: Tony Hain [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wed 19/12/2007 4:10 PM
To: 'Sam Hartman'
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 'Pete Resnick'; 'IETF Chair'; [email-masked]; 'John C Klensin'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary

Sam,

Tony

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:03:56 -0800

> holes then I disagree with you.

Establishing persistent state on an ISP infrastructure device is punching a
hole. It doesn't matter if that is a nat, or a STUN relay, the fact that a
customer locked it down will raise the potential for contention, and in fact
creates a routing entry that is not under the ISP's control. 

> Why will ISPs support this?  Because their customers voip phones and

They are more likely to want to force the phone traffic through a call
control point so they can count bits and bill minutes. 

I am willing to conceded on the behave point because client side actions
really don't matter, but I want to see multiple people running mta's and
independent web servers on the nat'd IETF network, with active connection
attempts to them from the outside. Nobody can physically configure the most
public nat, and no signaling of it is allowed because it is operated by a
third party that doesn't trust you. If you want a real indication of future
problems, run real services from behind the magic solution and document its
complete failure.

Tony

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:09:51 -0500

>>>>> "Tony" == Tony Hain <[email-masked]> 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 active connection attempts to them
    Tony> from the outside. Nobody can physically configure the most
    Tony> public nat, and no signaling of it is allowed because it is
    Tony> operated by a third party that doesn't trust you. If you
    Tony> want a real indication of future problems, run real services
    Tony> from behind the magic solution and document its complete
    Tony> failure.

I think this would be fun and educational.

I do something similar for my own infrastructure.
And yes there are problems.
Some things do work though.

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:24:59 -0800

Contention is certainly an issue, hence my proposal to regard well known port assignments as an obsolete arrangement and instead consider DNS and SRV the cannonical service discovery mechanism.

From: Tony Hain [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wed 19/12/2007 5:03 PM
To: 'Sam Hartman'
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 'John C Klensin'; 'IETF Chair'; [email-masked]; 'Pete Resnick'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary

Tony

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:16:22 -0800

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.

> that you can use ipv6 only. There is no rocket science here. People  

David, I think you missed Phillip's point. The average engineer at  
the IETF meeting isn't in control of significant aspects of his IT  
infrastructure, such as whether his IT department has enabled IPv6  
access to his mail server. Sure, I have IPv6 running on my Mac (it  
defaults "on" and I dont turn it off) and someone with IPv6 in their  
network can presumably get web pages from www.ipv6.cisco.com. That's  
not the same as "being productive".

---

From: Franck Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:22:57 +1200

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 AAAA records in the root well before the event
-seems that jabber.ietf.org is not IPv6 but that can be fixed before the
event
-some IETF sites/mailing lists are not IPv6, what is the list, and how
to fix that before the event?
-an IPv6 room seems to be needed, where there will be volunteers ready
to help configure delegates machines to IPv6
-...

I think a TODO list is needed, and each item actioned as to reduce the
unpleasantness of the experience. Get also your
corporations/organizations to assess if they will be visible or not on
IPv6 before the event. Get them to join the experiment and get ready, I
think it will do some good PR for the ones that are ready.

Not a small feast, but most of it doable.

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:46:05 -0800

On Dec 19, 2007, at 7:22 PM, Franck Martin wrote:

> 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 issue.

---

From: Franck Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:06:13 +1200

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:
> the laptop is the trivial part. It is the supporting infrastructure at
> the home corporation that is an issue.
>

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:21:04 -0800

> the home corporation that is an issue.

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?

No need to answer but it's worth exploring for those of us who
develop/deploy vpn platforms should think about.

---

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:59:09 +0100

> nsis (because most of the group is focused on nat signaling)

Nah, 80% wrong. Better go there and read again, as the group is not  
focussed on NAT signalling. NAT signalling is a part of some work there.

   Martin

> there are probably more, but closing these would be a good start  

[email-masked]

NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division

NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road,  
London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 07:33:27 -0500

> If you had access to a nat64 translator would your vpn client assuming

Given that most VPN's generally work if the client is NAT'ed (which is
often the case when accessing the network from an airport or hotel
wireless network), would they not necessarily work if there was a
NAT64 or NAT+PT box made available on the IETF network?  

And wouldn't that solve the problem for engineers who need to access
IPv4-only servers (of whatever kind; CVS, SVN, IMAP, http, etc.) that
are behind a VPN?  If not, why not?  And are people trying to figure
out a solution to that problem?  After all, that's a critical piece of
any IPv4/IPv6 transition program....

						- Ted

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:01:46 +0100

David Conrad wrote:
  
> IPv6 addresses will be available for root service via the 
> normal mechanisms significantly before the next IETF.

Thanks for info (also to Bill for the RFC 3245 pointer,
one of the RFCs I had in mind when I mentioned "IAB" ;-)

 Frank

---

From: Philip Matthews <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:54:53 -0500

There is no special signaling to BEHAVE-compliant NATs.
Instead, the client behind the NAT sends a packet to some device on  
the public side of the NAT, and this causes the NAT to create state.   
This is the way all NATs work today.

Though there are not a lot of NATs today that are 100% BEHAVE  
compliant, for each BEHAVE recommendation, there are commercial NATs  
that follow that recommendation. So the BEHAVE specifications are  
really just a collection of the best current practices of NAT vendors.

Furthermore the STUN, TURN, and ICE protocols do not require any  
support at all from the intervening NATs, and are in fact designed to  
work with existing NATs, including those that are currently being  
used by ISPs to NAT their entire network.

- Philip

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:30:10 -0800

At Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:19:03 -0800,
> up being has to mimic that reality. 

Tony,

I'm trying to understand on what evidence you're basing this
assertion.  Remember that the IETF hole punching techniques only
implicitly modify the configuration of the NAT, relying on the
ordinary NAT state management mechanisms.

I would encourage you to read 
draft-sipping-stucker-media-path-middleboxes-00.txt, which 
describes the sorts of enforcement mechanisms that 3G style
providers are starting to deploy, which indeed do incorporate
hole punching mechanisms for the media traffic.

-Ekr

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:15:52 -0800

> IPv4-nat, with trust boundary issues included.

What's to say that the audio streams can't be carried over v6? The
encoders weren't streaming over v6 this last time but the icecast server
that was employed for 69 and 70 has a AAAA record and the application is
listening on all 3 of it's v6 addresses...

Some people actually used v6 to retrieve the stream probably without
knowing they were and I didn't hear screaming except when I broke them
on Tuesday.

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:30:10 -0800

Tony,

-Ekr

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:15:52 -0800

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:14:30 -0700

> 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 the day came that I had to use IPv6, I'd quit the
ISP/Connectivity/Hosting/Colo/Internet business.  IPv6 addresses are
ugly.  Type a few out, and then check them for typos.  It's not fun.
You'd think that the people that came up with IPv6 were a bunch of
idiots or something for making the IP addresses... the things that make
the internet what it is... the things that give structure to
chaos......so choatic!  And just so unusable.  Who would make something
so hard on purpose?

IPv6 is a solution to a problem that has changed dramatically since IPv6
was created.  It solves a lot of problems that don't need solving.  It
solves some that shouldn't be "solved."    About the only one it still
solves that they set out to solve when it was created is the "out of
address space problem."  Predicted over and over again, we're still not
at 50% use for the current IP space.  ipv6.org says "IPv4 is over 20
years old!"  So is Ethernet.  And Unix.   But I digress.  IPv6 solves
that problem in a really stupid way.  They wouldn't settle to just make
the IP space 256 times larger by adding another 8 bits, and another
octet of three more numbers to a set of IP addresses... they had to go
for the mother lode!  128 bits!!  With 48 of those bits chewed up 'just
cus we can' by ethernet mac addresses... that no one will actually use
because it's a stupid security hole tagging your IP with what your
ethernet vendor ID is.  But it seemed like a good idea to solve that
problem that way at the time.  Right?

But IPv6 will auto configure a host when they plug in!  Because um...
wait, no that's what DHCP does.... wait, no, but IPv6 will improve
routing!  Wait, no, it'll break routing, because it tries to have the
global routing table basically track every single host on the net (as
opposed to large blocks of hosts that aren't always changing location
like current BGP4 does) and Paul Vixie says computers aren't big enough
to do that yet....  Let alone core routers.

But IPv6 does crypto!  Sort of.  It's got security built right in!
Uh-huh, right.

It's like the IPv6 people were too stupid to even realize that IPv4
works and works well because of how little intelligence is built into
the network.   The motto of IPv4 is "Network elegance through lack of
network intelligence."  So they, the great minds that brought us IPv6,
solved that problem by applying "lack of intelligence" to themselves in
hopes that they'd become elegant in their solution.  And that's how they
came up with IPv6.

I don't do IPv6.  And from my above rant, it should be clear that I'm
not a big fan of IPv6.  However, I would consider doing IPv6 if it means
I can do so without extra cost from my transit providers, and doing
things like upgrading routers.  It would be a fun exercise in the world
of IPv6, brought to you by the same people that brought you IPv4!  Or...
the GLOBAL INTERNET! Or... the world wide web! Wait, no.....not any of
the same people.  So maybe it'd be a fun exercise in "Here's how the
Internet would work if it was designed from the get-go to be badly
broken." That sounds fun, right?

Applying for IPv6 space from ARIN would probably be the easy part here.
 I'm sure they have a nice standard procedure for it.  I'll look in my
"ARIN and You!" 3 ring binder they sent me.  Yes.  It's seriously called
that.  And yes, I'm seriously going to get IPv6 space, just because I
can.  At least I think I can.  Unless they charge me $1,000 per year for
it.  Then I probably won't, because money's expensive.

The first thing I tried was to see if I could get some IPv6 transit.  I
decided to ask Sprint about IPv6.  Anyone want to place any bets as to
what their answer will be?  Spoiler follows:

Their first answer was "Um, we don't sell any IP6 Internet.  Why do you
need IP6?"  That's an exact quote.  And he said it in a really
derogatory way.  I nearly giggled like a little girl.  I had this
flashback to the movie Idiocracy where Joe uses his superior intellect
to get out of jail, and the guard's response is "Dumbass!  You're in the
wrong line!"

My answer was "A customer is requesting it and I'm just looking in to
it."  He went on this tirade (much like I did earlier in this email
before I talked to him...is that karma or what?) about how no one uses
IP6, and you have to have a network to support it before you have
applications that use IP6, and you need applications to use it before
anyone will build a network, and no one wants to break their apps to use
it, but people ask for it because they don't know what they're doing,
they just want IP6 because it's some new catchphrase like web two point
oh..... and how the IP6 college Internet backbone was shut down (at this
point I was glazed over) and he said a lot of other stuff, but that was
what I could remember.

So I decided to put this off and ask someone higher up tomorrow during
business hours when I can be escalated to someone that knows how to say
IPv6 the way it's spelled.

IPv6!  It's what networks crave!  It's got vee!

Another quote from the movie that may apply to IPv6 someday...."Yeah,
but it breaks down all the time because it was built by some really
smart guy a long time ago."

I should really go home now....

******

THE END

---

From: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 23:30:54 -0800

Fred,

> not the same as "being productive".

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 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.

David Kessens
---

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:50:28 +0100

On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 01:14:30PM -0700,
 Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]> 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 consider a switch to another provider,
one less entertaining but more knowledgeable :-) One spending more
time on his network and less on showing the whole world his ignorance.

> Type a few out, and then check them for typos. 

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)?

> decided to ask Sprint about IPv6.

This one is a bad example :-)

http://networxcontract.sprint.com/downloads/Sprint%20IPv6%20whitepaper_September%202007.pdf 
http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3717426

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:13:51 -0500

> should not stop any competent engineer.

So how about getting people to work together to document workarounds
on a wiki run by the IETF?  The point is if we want IPv6 to be
successful we have bootstrap it by eliminating excuses.  VPN access is
merely the latest excuse, and it won't be the last one, either.  :-)

The point here is to have an engineering approach to fixing problems,
by whatever means necessary.  Even if the initial solutions are
accomplished with bailing wire and duct tape, that's OK.  They can
always be fixed up later.

      	 	    	      	  	    - Ted

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:25:21 -0500

Theodore Tso wrote:
> on a wiki run by the IETF?  

+1

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:37:51 -0800

Hah!
 
Over here in Boston metropolitan area the much bigger concern is which provider can give you a reliable connection with acceptable speed. 
 
Since this thread started I have been forced to reboot my WiFi and cable box eight times as the Comcast connection goes down and causes the box to sulk. 
 
Part of this is due to the abysmal quality of the DHCP client and server code and the abysmal quality control on domestic WiFi routers which seem to all be designed to flake just over a year after they are deployed. I have tried every brand you can imagine and I have a large box full of ones that have gone off.
 
But the root cause here is the broadband connection flaking. I would switch to Verizon but reports suggest that it is no better.

Telling me that support for IPv6 should be a factor in making a choice between the two available providers is like telling one of the unfortunate occupants of East Germany that they should get a Ferrari instead of a Trabant.

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Fri 21/12/2007 3:50 AM
To: Peter Saint-Andre
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary

---

From: David Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:41:47 -0800 (PST)

> should not stop any competent engineer.

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
expensive resources. Competent engineers plan things ahead of time so the
likelyhood of failure is minimized.

---

From: David Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:00:54 -0800 (PST)

> (and they existed even before the DNS)?

But someone has to configure those things. That most likely will mean
humans having more difficulty typing longer addresses accurately.
Sometimes the resolution service is not working. Trouble shooting
generally means digging down to lower levels, etc.

Perhaps in some future time, we'll have applications which just do this
stuff more effectively. In the interim, I can only be grateful for my USB
memory stick as an improvement over postits as a mechanism for carrying IP
addresses around.

Given the sorry state of DHCP / DNS integration (I work with and around
common products used on Windows and Linux) ... I find a lot of bogus data
accrues over time ... I find automatic updates which can't cope with
laptops which move from wired to wireless. I've discovered that DHCP (as
deployed at least) can't provide a name suffix search list, etc.

As a network operations groupie, I can understand why a network operator
might not feel happy about having to embrace IPv6. They deal with what
curretly is, not what might be.

So rather that attacking folks out where the rubber meets the road, we
need to listen so we can understand their root problems and then we need
to get integrated solutions in place.

Having one or more carefully planned IPv6 network operations working
sessions over the next year and using the IETF meetings as the focal point
is a good way to gather experience, clarify requirements for
infrastructure tools, etc.

Disrupting a meeting funded for a different purpose will/would be an
offensive colossal waste of resources.

---

From: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:27:17 -0800

David,

> likelyhood of failure is minimized.

Indeed!

That is why I did the planning and solved all issues for my particular
situation already many IETFs ago. Basically, this whole discussion
shows that there are a few people behind the curve and they probably
should take action before next IETF.

Note that this is independent of whether a scheduled ipv4 outage
happens or not - unscheduled events do happen and it is simply prudent
behavior to allow for a fall back on a different version of ip if
there is a problem with one of the versions on the network.

David Kessens
---

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:13:36 -0800

> 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' laptops by their enterprise's IT department. Fine. So the participant will come back and send a note to their IT department, complaining that lack of IPv6 support forced them to stop reading corporate e-mail for an hour. Better warn them now. IT department are notoriously conservative, and it takes warnings like that to get them to move.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: David Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:30:37 -0800 (PST)

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 at best. With an undercurrent of an 'official' activity
there is the potential of nothing useful happening.

As the IT department, and everything else, associated with my business
there is no economic reason to be an early adopter. As a small business, I
have no weight to make anything happen except discomfort for myself. If
something like the proposal for setting up a working session in another
context which won't disrrupt the plenary is arranged, I will consider
bringing a second lap top which can be fiddled to whatever degree is
necessary to evaluate IPv6 connectivity issues.

IT departments are generally good at careful planning because they don't
get paid to disrrupt the corporate IT infrastructure. They aren't likely
to be motivated by IETF participant complaints about lack of IPv6 support
UNLESS they are already trying to provision IPv6 and see this as a good
test opportunity. My clients IT departments would simply provide EDGE/EVDO
cards for those folks who couldn't be offline for an hour.

The irony is that for IPV4 only folks, just disconnecting the network for
an hour will have the same effect ... except they wouldn't be disrrupting
the meeting trying to fix their laptops.

Dave Morris

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Christian Huitema wrote:

> The stronger argument I have heard against the proposed "IPv6
> interlude" is that it is not compatible with the services loaded on
> participants' laptops by their enterprise's IT department. Fine. So
> the participant will come back and send a note to their IT department,
> complaining that lack of IPv6 support forced them to stop reading
> corporate e-mail for an hour. Better warn them now. IT department are
> notoriously conservative, and it takes warnings like that to get them
> to move.
>
> -- Christian Huitema
>
>

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:33:34 -0800

At 1:30 PM -0800 12/21/07, David Morris wrote:
>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 (and/or pontificate) about IPv6 transition, IPv6 adoption, 
and the operational implications that are slowing the transition and 
adoption down. The discussion about IPv6 was an hour, maybe 90 
minutes.

As someone whose IETF area doesn't intersect with IPv6 much, I found 
the mic time at this plenary a useful way to catch up with the 
current thinking of people who were more involved in the topic than I 
am. However, in the end, it was just talk. The upcoming plenary has 
the possibility of being much more useful. Sure, there is a chance 
that the mic time will be hogged by people who want to whine about 
how much more productive we would have been talking about something 
else at the mic (is that two layers of process indirection or 
three?); I'll risk having to sit through that.

For all the people who think the proposed plenary is a waste of time: 
please don't come to complain. Instead, go out to dinner someplace 
good, and post about that on the meeting mailing list immediately 
after eating (or maybe even during eating). *That* will be of great 
value to all of us who suffered through a few hours of no IPv4 
service and thus have become even more hungry. Hopefully, you will be 
surprised by the number of people who reply from inside the plenary.

And who will bring a roll of stickers that say "Still running IPv6" 
for the survivors to wear the next day?

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: David Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:03:29 -0800 (PST)

> discuss (and/or pontificate) about IPv6 transition, IPv6 adoption,

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. My understanding was that this would just happen during
other regularily scheduled content. I would not be interested in preparing
an unrelated presentation intended to overlap this experiment. It would be
a waste of time as the in-room rumble related to getting laptops to work
is likely to overwhelm any conflicting planned conflict.

Dave Morris

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:12:14 +1100

> generally means digging down to lower levels, etc.

	No.  Something needs to configure the DNS.  All the human
	should do is give the box a name and perhaps authorise the
	initial update which add the public KEY record associated
	with the box to the DNS.  After that the box can update its
	own records using SIG(0).

	For reverse DNS, having a TCP connection is about the level
	of authentication required to add/replace a PTR record.

	This works with both autoconf and DHCP.

> memory stick as an improvement over postits as a mechanism for carrying IP

	cut-and-paste works well. :-)
 
> deployed at least) can't provide a name suffix search list, etc.

	That's implementation not protocol.  Complain to you vendor.
 
> curretly is, not what might be.

	The problem is that they don't deal with what is there.  They
	don't attempt to deploy so that don't find the product flaws
	so they can't report them.  The vendors then operate in a
	vacum of real data.

	The IETF itself operates in a vacum as it is hard to see
	the missing pieces of protocol when there are very few real
	attempts at deployment.

	From a protocol perspective IPv4 and IPv6 provide pretty
	much the same functionality.  The packets flow.  The sessions
	connect.  The rest really is up to product vendors and users
	to request IPv6 support.

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:39:37 -0800

At 4:03 PM -0800 12/21/07, David Morris wrote:
>presentations.

The IESG/IAOC meetings don't normally have "presentations" after the 
first half hour, and those first few are fairly pro forma (the host, 
the Postel award from ISOC, ADs coming and going). It is the 
technical plenary that normally has presentations.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Franck Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 21:33:05 +1200

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
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.
While IANA has added and modified IPv4 address for root servers in the
past, the addition of IPv6 addresses can be argued to be a new process
that has some technical considerations as well as potential policy
implications.

There were elements of the discussion among Board Members on this
topic that were controversial and there had been much Board level
discussion relating to this matter via email. A number of approaches
were discussed regarding an appropriate resolution on the matter and
the Chair sought comments from Board members and liaisons.

Steve Crocker, Thomas Narten, Suzanne Woolf, Harald Alvestrand, David
Conrad, Paul Twomey, the Chair, Bruce Tonkin and Raimundo Beca engaged
in a discussion regarding the appropriate approach and wording for the
resolution and whether a resolution was required.

Following this discussion, Steven Goldstein moved and Harald
Alvestrand seconded the following resolution:

Whereas, in the interests of aiding IPv6 deployment, the ICANN

Board believes IPv6 capability should be added to the root server system

without undue delay,

Whereas, the RSSAC/SSAC report SAC 018 has done a careful study of the

technical issues with adding IPv6 addresses to the root:

It is hereby resolved (__.2007) that the Board requests that IANA
staff add

IPv6 capability as offered by the individual IPv4 root server
operators to

the existing root name servers after a 45-day public notification period

using the methods and practices used to add or modify IPv4 addresses.

A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present, who approved the
motion by a vote of 13 to 0. Raimundo Beca abstained from the vote
because he did not consider this action necessary.

- --
- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Franck Martin
[email-masked]
"Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question"
G. Bachelard

---

From: David Conrad <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 07:29:50 -0800

Just for clarification:

On Dec 22, 2007, at 1:33 AM, Franck Martin wrote:
> David Conrad

"Y" is, of course, a typo. It should be "H".  Apologies for any  
confusion.

Regards,
-drc