[ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wolfgang Zenker
zenker at punkt.de
Tue Oct 8 18:14:33 CEST 2019
* Job Snijders <job at ntt.net> [191008 05:29]: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 08:11:41PM +0200, Enno Rey wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 08:05:18PM +0200, Bjoern Buerger wrote: >>> * Martin Schr?der (martin at oneiros.de) [191007 19:13]: >>>> Am Mo., 7. Okt. 2019 um 18:04 Uhr schrieb Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com>: >>>>> If I can get *one* person in this working group to go down to >>>>> their local coffee shop and make ipv6 work by whatever means >>>>> necessary (and >>>> Please start by eating your own dog food and make future RIPE >>>> meetings IPv6 only. >>> +1 >> we should definitely have a discussion about this in the 'open mic' >> slot in the wg in Rotterdam. Let's identify who to talk to, from the >> meetings' NOC and other circles within RIPE NCC, beforehand. > If folks are serious about killing dual-stack ... > Wouldn't it make more sense to first move this mailing list to an actual > ipv6-only environment? > Perhaps the WG could RIPE NCC to register a domain like > ripe-ipv6-only-wg.org. This domain would have authoritative nameservers > only reachable via IPv6, an MTA that doesn't have any IPv4 connectivity > & a webserver with the charter, CoC, and mailing list archive only > accessible via IPv6. Much like how Marco David's dnslabs.nl is set up? I think both suggested measures (going 100% ipv6-only on the meeting network and on this mailing list) are a pretty bad idea. It might be useful if we want to congratulate ourselfes how cool we are and how good we can work in an IPv6-only environment, but it would have no use whatsoever to help the RIPE community and the internet at large to migrate towards a world where IPv6 is the "normal" protocol. On the other hand, switching the "default" meeting SSID to IPv6-only/NAT64 while still providing the dual stack network as a fallback, preferably combined with a helpdesk staffed by volunteers ready to analyze any problems that attendees might have, strikes me as a pretty good opportunity to raise awareness and to find problems where further work is needed. Wolfgang have,
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]