On 03 Nov 2015, at 11:53, Philip Homburg <pch-ripeml@u-1.phicoh.com> wrote:
[...]
There is something I don't understand about this discussion.
The network at RIPE meetings currently provides a good network experience. The wifi works, there is IPv6 that works, and for those living in the past (which is essentially all of us, because only a small fraction of the internet is actually reachable over IPv6), there is also native IPv4. The surprising thing to me is that there is a request to the ops team at the meeting to provide broken IPv4 by default.
+1 — Thank you for this. The default network is not v4-only. It’s a dual stacked network. Not sure why we want to call it legacy. At the end of the day, the OS [RFC 6724] is going to prefer v6 connections anyway.
I can understand the desire to have experimental networks at a meeting to test what works and what doesn't work. But why should such a broken network be default? There are many broken networks in the world. Wifi often doesn't work, in many places there is no 3G GSM. Do we want to replicate that as well at a RIPE meeting?
And even if only a limited number of IPv4 addresses were available such that some form of NAT would be required, it would be weird to require the ops team to deploy one particular solution (NAT64) instead of letting the ops team figure out which is best way to provide a network at the RIPE meeting.
(Can't wait for a request for Atlas to support NAT64, that's going to be interesting)
Another interesting can of worms is how to do DNSSEC local valication on the context of NAT64.
Best, Vaibhav ===================================================== Vaibhav Bajpai Room 91, Research I School of Engineering and Sciences Jacobs University Bremen, Germany www.vaibhavbajpai.com =====================================================