[ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?

>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.

>From a host perspective, NAT64 directly on wifi is not attractive: it will
require an address translation component in every host to deal with legacy
applications that handle IPv4 literals.

NAT64 is also not attractive from a backward compatibility point of view:
IPv4-only devices and hosts that are dual stack but lack the 464XLAT component
will fail.

Considering those issues, why does it make sense to subject attendees of a
RIPE meeting to such a network? Anybody who wants to test can do that in the
current setup. Why trick other people into connecting to a network that
they are unlikely to encounter anywhere else?