> On 03 Nov 2015, at 11:53, Philip Homburg <[email protected]> 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 =====================================================
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
