Subject: [hackathon] FW: RESENDING - Incremental Deployment of IPv6-only Wi-Fi for IETF Meetings

From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 19:13:59 +0000

Forwarding to the hackathon list. Sounds like a great project, Lee. Thanks for championing it.

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf <[email-masked]> on behalf of Lee Howard <[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 8:01 AM
To: John Curran <[email-masked]>, Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: RESENDING - Incremental Deployment of IPv6-only Wi-Fi for IETF Meetings

    On 8/14/17, 11:09 AM, "ietf on behalf of John Curran"
    <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:
    
    >On 31 Jul 2017, at 8:10 PM, Randy Bush <[email-masked]> wrote:
    >> ...
    >>
    >To that end, would it be possible for those behind the "IPv6-only Wi-Fi
    >for IETF”
    >draft to partner with the NOC at the upcoming meeting to help debug
    >issues that 
    >are reported on “ietf-nat64* and publish the results?  The IETF does have
    >a wide
    >variety of users, which is really helpful in finding edge cases with
    >protocols that
    >might have issues and otherwise go undiscovered.  If it were may clear
    >(e.g. during
    >the opening) that there is a goal to put the “ietf-nat64” network through
    >its paces
    >and that there would be a post-mortem I-D as a result, I suspect quite a
    >few folks
    >would at least give that setup a try for a while, with the goal of
    >finding and reporting
    >breakage.

    As promised, I have proposed an "IPv4-IPv6 Transition Technology Interop”
    for the IETF100 Hackathon:
    Description at: 
    https://www.ietf.org/registration/MeetingWiki/wiki/100hackathon
    Discussion/planning list:
    http://lists.retevia.net/listinfo.cgi/v6-interop-retevia.net
    Hackathon registration and mailing list at
    https://www.ietf.org/hackathon/100-hackathon.html
    
    I have two versions of NAT64 planned (A10, VPP). I would like to compare
    to at least 464xlat (probably with CLAT on gateway, not device) to address
    some of the comments in the thread. I’d also like to compare other
    transition technologies, such as DS-Lite and MAP-T/MAP-E, though these are
    probably more interesting to the rest of the Internet than to the narrow
    question of what the IETF should do. All of that, of course, is subject to
    people wanting to do it, and proper planning ahead of time.

    Lee