So, time for some real action?

[Andrew  Yourtchenko]

On 2/6/14, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:

> 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.

This is a wise idea and a great approach !

>
> 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.

Indeed.

>
> 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.

Exactly - and this is the reason it talks about the IT professional
*themselves*, not their relatives, customers, cats or parrots.

>
> 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

I apply this to myself and other folks going to the conferences and
groups and telling people about IPv6 - if we can't perform our own job
using IPv6 only, there is a problem.

I use IPv6-only at events whenever it is available and tell that the
call over that VoIP app that is not IPv6-enabled will have to wait
till the end of the event or we need to get an IPv6-enabled VoIP app,
etc.

Now, to clarify "IPv6-only" means "IPv6-only in the network I'm
connecting from".

Having a dualstack jumphost somewhere in a DC or a NAT64 is within the
rules, at this time.

If I can make myself work under these conditions, then I can be
confident that I can  recommend the others *experimenting* with those.

> 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.

This will be acceptable for a bigger number of people, yes.

--a

>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> ================================================
> David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
> 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
> ================================================
>