[ipv6-wg] IPv6 only network at RIPE 68

In your letter dated Sat, 17 May 2014 20:22:29 +0200 you wrote:
>The point is: while the RIPE meeting might be able to affort using a
>1000 public IPv4 addresses on a conference network, not everyone will
>be able to do this in the future.  So you'll see IPv6+NAT44 or IPv6+NAT64,
>and it's very good to make this crystal clear to application developers
>(fosdem) and networking people (ripe), so they can see if stuff
>needs fixing.

So, we have one option, (IPv6+NAT44), no stuff needs fixing. We have another
option, (IPv6+NAT64), stuff needs fixing.

Maybe somebody needs to come up with a good justification for using NAT64
in the first place? (For networks other then ones with strange restrictions
like 3G)

Obviously, this is a very good argument for running NAT64 on an experimental
network.

>Why require IPv4 in the first place?  Make sure the destination and the
>applications in question work over IPv6, done.

Yes. Let's make it such that the mail server that handles this list only
accepts and delivers mail over IPv6. :-) Any of the current or prospective
chairs willing to propose that?

>> And complain about dual stack devices (like Android) that
>> just don't support the tunneling protocol of the day.
>
>A device that just plain fails to operate on an IPv6-only network has
>nothing to do with "tunneling protocol of the day".

As far as I know, the only thing everybody cares about is IPv4 
connectivity. That's why NAT464 was developed. Nobody seriously
proposes to make an IPv6-only only network the default.

At FOSDEM, usually the wifi in the big halls is completely overloaded.
The best trick is then to go to the IPv6-only network, because nobody is using
it.

So, yes the IPv6-only option for Android would be really useful for FOSDEM.
But not much else.