headers
Bob Hinden | 1 Jul 2007 03:49
Picon

Re: chicago IETF IPv6 connectivity

Jim,

> 	Have no fear, the Chicago network will have IPv6 connectivity (as  
> we always have). It's likely to be natively routed out through I2,  
> though the kind offer of a tunnel will be held in reserve, should  
> we have a problem with that. :-)

Good to hear!  Many kudos to the folks putting together the IETF  
network.

Maybe we are getting to the point in time where we should only have  
IPv6 at IETF meetings or it that's premature run IPv4 behind a couple  
of layers of NAT.

Bob

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Permalink | Reply | 140 comments |
headers
Noel Chiappa | 1 Jul 2007 04:22
Picon

Re: chicago IETF IPv6 connectivity

    > From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden <at> nokia.com>

    > Maybe we are getting to the point in time where we should only have
    > IPv6 at IETF meetings

Guess that's the only way you can get people to convert to IPv6, huh - cut
off their IPv4 access?

	Noel

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Dave Crocker | 1 Jul 2007 04:38

Re: chicago IETF IPv6 connectivity


Bob Hinden wrote:
> Maybe we are getting to the point in time where we should only have IPv6 
> at IETF meetings or it that's premature run IPv4 behind a couple of 
> layers of NAT.

On the theory that the ietf meeting net is for production services, wouldn't 
it make sense to have the time to cut over to pure ipv6 be when production use 
of ipv4 becomes minimal?

No?

--

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Permalink | Reply | 16 comments |
headers
Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino | 1 Jul 2007 04:43

Re: chicago IETF IPv6 connectivity

>    > From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden <at> nokia.com>
>
>    > Maybe we are getting to the point in time where we should only have
>    > IPv6 at IETF meetings
>
>Guess that's the only way you can get people to convert to IPv6, huh - cut
>off their IPv4 access?

	well, if you are using either of the following, you are IPv6 ready.
	- MacOS X after 10.2 (or 10.3?  I do not remember but you should really
	  be using 10.4.10)
	- *BSD releases after year 1999
	- Linux after year 2000 or somewhere around (depending on your
	  distribution)
	- Nokia Symbian phones (Bob will tell you more about it)
	- Windows Vista
	- Windows XP SP2 with "ipv6 install" command

	if you still are using Windows Me/98/95, you should really upgrade,
	since there's no security patch releases from Microsoft any longer
	IIRC.

itojun

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Fred Baker | 1 Jul 2007 04:56
Picon
Favicon

Re: chicago IETF IPv6 connectivity


On Jun 30, 2007, at 9:49 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:

> Maybe we are getting to the point in time where we should only have  
> IPv6 at IETF meetings

good luck. Until the ISPs and our corporate networks deploy it, we  
can't go there.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Permalink | Reply | 122 comments |
headers
Michel Py | 1 Jul 2007 05:40
Picon
Picon
Favicon

RE: chicago IETF IPv6 connectivity

>> Bob Hinden wrote:
>> Maybe we are getting to the point in time where
>> we should only have IPv6 at IETF meetings

> Noel Chiappa wrote:
> Guess that's the only way you can get people to
> convert to IPv6, huh - cut off their IPv4 access?

:-D

Might happen for IETF meetings; in the real world out of the ivory
tower, might take more time.

Michel.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Keith Moore | 1 Jul 2007 06:49
Picon

Re: chicago IETF IPv6 connectivity


> On the theory that the ietf meeting net is for production services,
> wouldn't it make sense to have the time to cut over to pure ipv6 be
> when production use of ipv4 becomes minimal?
>
> No?
No, because that presumes that IPv6 will be used for production only
when it mostly replaces IPv4.  It's more realistic to assume that the
first production uses of IPv6 are those for which IPv4 is not
satisfactory for one reason or another - e.g. lack of available
addresses, inability to use the desired applications in the presence of
NAT, etc.

OTOH, the IETF meeting net has never been entirely for production
services - there's also been something of a history of using it to eat
our own dogfood and learning how to make it tasty enough that we like
it.   Remote video and audio access via multicast, wireless LANs, etc.

Keith

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino | 1 Jul 2007 07:36

Re: chicago IETF IPv6 connectivity

> > Maybe we are getting to the point in time where we should only have  
> > IPv6 at IETF meetings
> 
> good luck. Until the ISPs and our corporate networks deploy it, we  
> can't go there.

	to use legacy protocol like IPv4 :-) you can use IPv6-to-IPv4
	tranlators like NAT-PT or RFC3142.  their scalability is no worse
	than IPv4-to-IPv4 NAT.

itojun

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Permalink | Reply | 105 comments |
headers
Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino | 1 Jul 2007 14:32

Re: chicago IETF IPv6 connectivity

> > Maybe we are getting to the point in time where we should only have IPv6 
> > at IETF meetings or it that's premature run IPv4 behind a couple of 
> > layers of NAT.
> 
> On the theory that the ietf meeting net is for production services, wouldn't 
> it make sense to have the time to cut over to pure ipv6 be when production use
> of ipv4 becomes minimal?

	maybe we can have the default "IETF61" SSID be pro-IPv6, and SSID
	"legacy" be IPv4-only :-P

itojun

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Dave Crocker | 1 Jul 2007 15:34
Favicon

Re: chicago IETF IPv6 connectivity


Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> 	maybe we can have the default "IETF61" SSID be pro-IPv6, and SSID
> 	"legacy" be IPv4-only :-P

Ahh, well.  That moves the change from being coercive to being cool.

Good marketing approach.

d/
--

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |

Gmane