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

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:06 PM Job Snijders <job at ntt.net> wrote:
> So... one of the ideas to be explored is that there is a only a
> *single* SSID, but through WPA-802.1X let the username decide what
> 'profile' you want.

[skip]

> There ALREADY is an IPv6-only+NAT64 Wifi SSID. Use it if you want to. If
> there aren't enough users on it, go back to the drawing board and
> explore why that is.

We do know why. The profile approach you suggested would work just
*slightly* better than two SSIDs.
Users do not care. They connect to the SSID their device remembered
and if there are multiple 'known' SSIDs nobody would pay attention to
which SSID
their device is connected to.

Imagine a WiFi network with a few thousands of users.
Step 1. Opt-in. You ask them to 'try IPv6-only' SSID - you must be
*very* lucky if you get more than 3-5% of users moving. Not because
smth does not work for them but because they are lazy.
Some of those who moved will be going back and forth between SSIDs w/o
even knowing it - here the 802.1x profile might help.
Step 2: Opt-out. You make the 'primary' SSID Ipv6-only and advise
those who are seeing issues to use another SSID. In that case I'd
expect to see between 70-85% of users stay on Ipv6-only (the number
does depend on mobile/laptop ratio on the network). For exactly the
same reason only 5% moves if you do opt-in: users are lazy and do not
care which SSID they connect to if it works.

...writing this email from IPv6-only WiFi...

> I maintain, let's first move this mailing list to an IPv6 only
> environment, if that is a success, perhaps we can reconsider.

I might be missing smth here: what does SMTP over IPv6 to do with the
ability of running an IPv6-only meeting WiFi network?

>If the
> argument is "but then the rest of the world can't talk to us"...
> exactly.

Oh then please clarify what exactly do you mean by 'moving the mailing
list to Ipv6-only environment'.
Running the mail server in an IPv6-only DC which has SIIT? *That* would work.
Removing all Ipv4 MXes/A? No it would not and the proper analogy would
be 'making the RIPE WiFi Ipv6-only w/o providing NAT64'.


-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry