So, time for some real action?

David Farmer farmer at
Thu Feb 6 18:51:53 CET 2014

On 2/6/14, 08:51 , Dick Visser wrote:
> ​I fully support this idea. But I'm in doubt what to actually do on 6 June.
> There isn't much benefit in turning off IPv4 on client devices in our
> office, because we already have a good idea what will work and what won't.
> Turning off IPv4 on all internet facing services would be better,
> because it will point out any IPv6 connectivity problems that visitors have.
> In that case, I can go about this in several ways.
> Doing it through (low TTL + removal of A records) gives you less control
> over things.
> If you block IPv4 access at the service level (filtering/ACLs), then
> it's easier to restore things.
> Maybe some intermediate solution, such as serving up an explanation page
> to IPv4 users?
> Other ideas?

You do not want to intentionally break anything.  My plan is to set up a 
separate SSID that has IPv6 only, probably with NAT64 also, this allows 
individual users who what to participate to do so.

However, by using a separate SSID, if there is breakage that prevents a 
user from doing there job, they can simply change back to the normal 
SSID and do their job.

We used a similar strategy when turning-on IPv6 Dual-Stack several years 
ago.  Over 6 months we had over 5000 people use that separate SSID 
without any reported IPv6 related issues, only general wireless issues. 
  This was used as evidence to management for enabling IPv6 Dual-Stack 
on the production wireless SSID and phasing out the separate SSID.

The goal this time wouldn't be to converge the production and separate 
IPv6 only SSID anytime soon.  But to create an extended voluntary 
testing environment.  Also, the separate SSID provides an option when 
the production SSID runs out of IPv4 addresses.

So, please DO NOT do anything that intentionally breaks an unsuspecting 
user, this is a really bad idea and is counter productive to the IPv6 
cause.  Even this possibly misguided campaign calls for this to be a 
voluntary action.

I say possibly misguided, because telling my boss that I can't work 
because something doesn't support IPv6 seems to be going a little too 
far.  Telling my boss that I'm participating in this IPv6 only day and 
it my take a little longer while I try something in IPv6 only first then 
switching back if it doesn't work, seems much more reasonable to me.


David Farmer               Email: farmer at
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list