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

>I would expect such devices mostly in a home network (gaming consoles 
>etc). On a business meeting network like RIPE the number of IPv4-only 
>devices is negligible.

I'm confused how it can be a good thing to use a different way to connect
to a RIPE meeting network then the one you would use at the office or at
home. 

>I am sure the few of us who run local DNSSEC validation would love the 
>opportunity to make it work. Finding IPv4 literals and fixing them is a 
>feature :)

There is an experimental NAT64 network. That should be enough for people
who love to fix something.

I'm very happy with dual stack. It is a technology that just works and
doesn't need fixes on the host. Network configuration on hosts is 
complicated enough. We don't need more options.

>> The net result is that with dual stack and NAT64 we now have two 
>options of
>> providing IPv6+IPv4 on a network. This is confusing to everybody who 
>is not
>> a network engineer.
>
>This _is_ a RIPE meeting...

I assumed that the point of testing this at a RIPE meeting is to deploy it
in other locations. In those locations, most people are not network engineers
but still have to deal with the fact that suddenly some devices/software 
don't work on some wifi networks. And they have no clue why not, other than
that it has something to do with IPv6.

> I am honestly surprised by the back pressure in the RIPE community.
> If production networks can deploy this for millions of users, why
> should a small conference network with a huge number of network
> engineers be any problem?

There is quite a lot of NAT64 in mobile networks. As far as I know there
is very little NAT64 on wifi. But I might be wrong. Any pointers to 
wide scale NAT64 on wifi?