Mailing List Archive

On 06/02/2014 14:51, Dick Visser wrote:
> http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/blog/2013/12/campaign-turn-off-ipv4-on-6-june-2014-for-one-day/

This is a terrible idea which will cause IPv6 to be associated with
gratuitous breakage.

Nick

On 6 Feb 2014 23:52, "Dick Visser" <visser@terena.org> wrote:
> Other ideas?

Why stop at IPv4? Why not also turn off non-IP phones, non-optical links,
2G/3G networks, bank mainframes, airline reservation systems, and computers
running XP or older? That's all legacy technology too.

Hell, why stop at the Internet? Why not shut down fossil fuel power
stations, non-electric buses/cars/trains, and oil heating? That's all
legacy technology as well.

Ah, right - because it would infuriate people. Just like turning off IPv4
would infuriate 98+% of Internet users.

I know there are different opinions on this.
But between black and white there are many shades of grey.
That's why I was asking.
I know that some stuff will break, I'm looking for ways to put this
'breakage' to positive use.



On 6 February 2014 16:48, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:

> On 06/02/2014 14:51, Dick Visser wrote:
> >
> http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/blog/2013/12/campaign-turn-off-ipv4-on-6-june-2014-for-one-day/
>
> This is a terrible idea which will cause IPv6 to be associated with
> gratuitous breakage.
>
> Nick
>
>


--
Dick Visser
System & Networking Engineer
TERENA Secretariat
Singel 468 D, 1017 AW Amsterdam
The Netherlands

On 06/02/2014 16:04, Dick Visser wrote:
> I know there are different opinions on this.
> But between black and white there are many shades of grey.
> That's why I was asking.
> I know that some stuff will break, I'm looking for ways to put this
> 'breakage' to positive use.

people don't care about ipv6. They care about their email, their web
searches, their helpdesk access, their online bank accounts, their
mortgage, their partner and their dog. If you cause them to lose access to
their online things, then ipv6 will stick in their mind as the thing which
caused this problem. This is not going to be productive.

Nick

On 06/02/14 16:04, Dick Visser wrote:
> I know there are different opinions on this.
> But between black and white there are many shades of grey.

Maybe. But this phrase:

"If turning IPv4 off results in inability to perform our job for our
employers, we tell them the reason and take a day off."

...does not send a good message. I would be inclined to tell the member
of staff to get their a**e into work and stop acting like such a child.


If I understand the proposal correctly, the idea is that individuals
will disable IPv4 for a day, on their own personal equipment or
workstations.

If so:

1. That *might* be useful, but it's unclear to me why having a "day"
for this is helpful; the purpose of IPv6 day #1 and #2 was to coordinate
the enabling for people who *didn't* opt in, so that any impact would
have an obvious cause. If an individual wants to do this, they can do it
at any time and see the effects.

2. The wording needs to be improved, drastically. It has a very
care-free tone to it, which is not helpful to the overall efforts.

IMHO effort at this point would be best directed to the large, holdout
broadband providers in countries with low uptake (e.g. BT in the UK).

On Feb 6, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:

> On 06/02/2014 16:04, Dick Visser wrote:
>> I know there are different opinions on this.
>> But between black and white there are many shades of grey.
>> That's why I was asking.
>> I know that some stuff will break, I'm looking for ways to put this
>> 'breakage' to positive use.
>
> people don't care about ipv6. They care about their email, their web
> searches, their helpdesk access, their online bank accounts, their
> mortgage, their partner and their dog. If you cause them to lose access to
> their online things, then ipv6 will stick in their mind as the thing which
> caused this problem. This is not going to be productive.
>
> Nick
>



De-cloak…

Rarely do I do this, but this needs a chorus..

+1

…cloak



Best,

-M<

On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 15:48 +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 06/02/2014 14:51, Dick Visser wrote:
> > http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/blog/2013/12/campaign-turn-off-ipv4-on-6-june-2014-for-one-day/
>
> This is a terrible idea which will cause IPv6 to be associated with
> gratuitous breakage.

Concur.

This might make sense if IPv6-enabled networks were the norm and not the
exception. But that's not true today nor will it likely be on June 6
this year.

--
Antonio Querubin <tony@lavanauts.org>

> If I understand the proposal correctly, the idea is that individuals will disable IPv4 for a day, on their own personal equipment or workstations.
>
> If so:
>
> 1. That *might* be useful, but it's unclear to me why having a "day" for this is helpful; the purpose of IPv6 day #1 and #2 was to coordinate the enabling for people who *didn't* opt in, so that any impact would have an obvious cause. If an individual wants to do this, they can do it at any time and see the effects.
>
> 2. The wording needs to be improved, drastically. It has a very care-free tone to it, which is not helpful to the overall efforts.
>
> IMHO effort at this point would be best directed to the large, holdout broadband providers in countries with low uptake (e.g. BT in the UK).

Full ACK.

I also see the relevance of world launch events, but I strongly doubt that world IPv4 stop would have any impact (other than us IT guys being seen as looking for an excuse for a day off).
Say I have an hybrid car. What is the relevance of deciding, on a given day, not to use the fuel engine? (or to go through the trouble of pumping the fuel out of the car).

Regards

Stéphane Dodeller

Hi Dick,
At 06:51 06-02-2014, Dick Visser wrote:
>I fully support this idea. But I'm in doubt what to actually do on 6 June.

Turning off IPv4 like that does not sound like a good idea to me. It
is possible to determine what would break if the network is IPv6
only. The idea would only make life difficult for users.

Regards,
-sm

hello,

On 02/06/2014 05:00 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>
> Ah, right - because it would infuriate people. Just like turning off
> IPv4 would infuriate 98+% of Internet users.
>
no, we will not shutdown ipv4 on the access network, nor on the servers
and neither on the corporate firewalls.
ipv4 will be shut down only by single users who will want to test a ipv6
only internet... it's usefull (I think) only to make content provider to
says "hey, on june the 6th a few guys will discover which website will
not be ipv6 ready and the day after newspapers will write that google,
facebook, twitter are ready, but skype and a lot of other big are not"...
...maybe some CIO will get budget from the CEO to move their company on
the list of the ipv6 ready list :-)

I know we do this test (turn off ipv4 on our laptop) every week and we
also have plugins on the browser to tell us how we reach a website, but
the ipv6day may create the critical mass we need to make something
really happends!

--
saluti,
emilio brambilla
emilio@ngi.it
http://www.ngi.it/

On 2/6/14, 08:51 , Dick Visser wrote:
> http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/blog/2013/12/campaign-turn-off-ipv4-on-6-june-2014-for-one-day/
>
> ​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.

Thanks.

--
================================================
David Farmer Email: farmer@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
================================================

On 2/6/14, Phil Mayers <p.mayers@imperial.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 06/02/14 16:04, Dick Visser wrote:
>> I know there are different opinions on this.
>> But between black and white there are many shades of grey.
>
> Maybe. But this phrase:
>
> "If turning IPv4 off results in inability to perform our job for our
> employers, we tell them the reason and take a day off."
>
> ...does not send a good message. I would be inclined to tell the member
> of staff to get their a**e into work and stop acting like such a child.
>

Last time I checked, anyone with available days off can take them at
any time for any reason.

>
> If I understand the proposal correctly, the idea is that individuals
> will disable IPv4 for a day, on their own personal equipment or
> workstations.
>
> If so:
>
> 1. That *might* be useful, but it's unclear to me why having a "day"

That's exactly the idea. It's explicitly *NOT* to break others'
networks nor to have the innocent users suffer.

> for this is helpful; the purpose of IPv6 day #1 and #2 was to coordinate
> the enabling for people who *didn't* opt in, so that any impact would
> have an obvious cause. If an individual wants to do this, they can do it
> at any time and see the effects.

Having a defined day when others are doing the same thing makes it
easier to allocate the time for it, at least for some.

>
> 2. The wording needs to be improved, drastically. It has a very
> care-free tone to it, which is not helpful to the overall efforts.

If you are talking about the original wording on the AVAAZ - I'd be
very happy to hear better wording, feel free to unicast.

>
> IMHO effort at this point would be best directed to the large, holdout
> broadband providers in countries with low uptake (e.g. BT in the UK).
>

What would that effort consist of ?

--a

On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:52:49PM +0100, Andrew ? Yourtchenko wrote:
> On 2/6/14, Phil Mayers <p.mayers@imperial.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Maybe. But this phrase:
> >
> > "If turning IPv4 off results in inability to perform our job for our
> > employers, we tell them the reason and take a day off."
> >
> > ...does not send a good message. I would be inclined to tell the member
> > of staff to get their a**e into work and stop acting like such a child.
> >
>
> Last time I checked, anyone with available days off can take them at
> any time for any reason.

I can see it now:

Employee: "I can't work today because I've turned off IPv4 and none of our systems support IPv6. So I won't be coming in to the office."

Boss: "So you're taking a vacation day."

Employee: "Yes, but I also won't be using any IPv4."

Boss: "Fine, just make sure you're here tomorrow with your eye-pee-whatever turned on."

Bill.

On 2/6/14, David Farmer <farmer@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@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
> ================================================
>

On 06/02/2014 17:52, Andrew 👽 Yourtchenko wrote:

> Last time I checked, anyone with available days off can take them at
> any time for any reason.

Most places aren't quite that generous; notice, simultaneous team member
leave and "exceptional circumstance" clauses typically apply.

But I take your point; individuals are of course free, modulo such
concerns, to take time off for their own reasons.

IMHO taking a days leave because IPv4 is still required is silly. But
hey, who am I to say?

> That's exactly the idea. It's explicitly *NOT* to break others'
> networks nor to have the innocent users suffer.

Ok. But if you read the replies to the original email, it's clear a lot
of people didn't get that. So there is a messaging problem here.

> Having a defined day when others are doing the same thing makes it
> easier to allocate the time for it, at least for some.

Shrug. If you say so.

> If you are talking about the original wording on the AVAAZ - I'd be
> very happy to hear better wording, feel free to unicast.

My problem is entirely with the work point. Denying yourself online
shopping and facebook is just that - self-denial. Though a really brave
option would be to do that *permanently*, and let the retailers know why
you're *never* shopping with them until they're v6-ready.

Denying yourself the ability to work *in the field you're trying to
affect change* seems futile.

It would be better to go to work, try and work with IPv4 disabled, make
a note of everything that didn't work, then commit to fixing it all
before the same time next year. That's both far harder, and far more
productive, than throwing your hands in the air and saying "nothing
works without IPv4" - which is not a surprising conclusion ;o)

>> IMHO effort at this point would be best directed to the large, holdout
>> broadband providers in countries with low uptake (e.g. BT in the UK).
>>
>
> What would that effort consist of ?

That is an excellent question which I am not well equipped to answer. If
there is anyone on the list with insight in the UK broadband market, and
any workable suggestions and/or hopeful news, I'd love to hear it.

I note that BT have, recently, gone to the expense of deploying CGN but
not IPv6 - which is not promising. Aalthough the newest CPE has IPv6
stuff in the UI, currently all disabled, so maybe they'll turn it on
later...

On 07/02/2014 04:48, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 06/02/2014 14:51, Dick Visser wrote:
>> http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/blog/2013/12/campaign-turn-off-ipv4-on-6-june-2014-for-one-day/
>
> This is a terrible idea which will cause IPv6 to be associated with
> gratuitous breakage.

That was my first reaction, but "It’s all voluntary – you can turn off IPv4
on your own devices, but no one will be turning off IPv4 for anyone else."
doesn't sound quite that bad; only geeks will do that, and probably only for
about 5 minutes. So it's probably a cute idea.

I see a button here for turning of the loudspeaker, and another one
for Bluetooth, but I can't seem to find the "EyePeeVeeFour" button.

Brian

On 2/6/14, Phil Mayers <p.mayers@imperial.ac.uk> wrote:

>> That's exactly the idea. It's explicitly *NOT* to break others'
>> networks nor to have the innocent users suffer.
>
> Ok. But if you read the replies to the original email, it's clear a lot
> of people didn't get that. So there is a messaging problem here.
>

Upon rereading the text "all devices we use" might mean "servers" for
some. I added the clarification to make the intent more explicit, as
well as a "it goes without saying" post-scriptum at the end. Hopefully
this will make it more explicit that this is not a call to get the IT
professionals to go and gratuitously cut off the wires off the live
servers.

>
>> If you are talking about the original wording on the AVAAZ - I'd be
>> very happy to hear better wording, feel free to unicast.
>
> My problem is entirely with the work point. Denying yourself online
> shopping and facebook is just that - self-denial. Though a really brave
> option would be to do that *permanently*, and let the retailers know why
> you're *never* shopping with them until they're v6-ready.

To start with it, we'd need at least one retailer that *does* support IPv6.

Are there any at all ?

If not - then one would need to create a large enough group that would
express this as a single entity - if it were to get big enough, it
might make it interesting for some retailer to cater to this group.

>
> Denying yourself the ability to work *in the field you're trying to
> affect change* seems futile.
>
> It would be better to go to work, try and work with IPv4 disabled, make
> a note of everything that didn't work, then commit to fixing it all
> before the same time next year. That's both far harder, and far more
> productive, than throwing your hands in the air and saying "nothing
> works without IPv4" - which is not a surprising conclusion ;o)

I thought about it a lot at the time of writing that sentence and
indeed my first reaction was to write pretty much exactly what you
suggest. It's great, challenge and all, and it works - if the
professional in question is in direct authority to change the
situation. But if they aren't - what can they do ?

What I ended up with seemed like the least unreasonable idea for a
lowest common denominator.

But I am very open to another not-too-unreasonable idea that is achievable.

Making it "harder" is not a desirable property, though.

Maybe transforming this into a "taking a day off and using this time
to educate the others and help them with their IPv6 deployment" could
be a better option ?

Take a day off because you can't do work without IPv6 and then use
this time to configure an IPv6-only SSID with NAT64 on a network where
you *do* have control (may be still a different segment at work, or
maybe your home network) or test a couple of apps and submit bug
reports - how does this sound ?

>
>>> IMHO effort at this point would be best directed to the large, holdout
>>> broadband providers in countries with low uptake (e.g. BT in the UK).
>>>
>>
>> What would that effort consist of ?
>
> That is an excellent question which I am not well equipped to answer. If
> there is anyone on the list with insight in the UK broadband market, and
> any workable suggestions and/or hopeful news, I'd love to hear it.
>

The next IETF is by a coincidence in London in just a few weeks. Might
be interesting to pop by and ask this question during the plenary and
see if any ideas emerge. :-)

--a

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Andrew 👽 Yourtchenko
<ayourtch@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe transforming this into a "taking a day off and using this time
> to educate the others and help them with their IPv6 deployment" could
> be a better option ?
>
> Take a day off because you can't do work without IPv6 and then use
> this time to configure an IPv6-only SSID with NAT64 on a network where
> you *do* have control (may be still a different segment at work, or
> maybe your home network) or test a couple of apps and submit bug
> reports - how does this sound ?

*This* sounds much better that the original idea of breaking things, I'd say.

...hmmm...should such a day off be classified as 'for religious reasons'? ;)))

--
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Dick Visser <visser@terena.org> wrote:
> I know there are different opinions on this.
> But between black and white there are many shades of grey.
> That's why I was asking.
> I know that some stuff will break, I'm looking for ways to put this
> 'breakage' to positive use.

To put this breakage to positive use we shall:
- think about what is going to break
- fix it
- test it
...and then try to disable IPv4 to prove that things are not going to
break anymore.

Previous IPv6 events were to demonstrate that the sky is not going to
fall. This is the way to go.

In addition I believe that we should choose words carefully when
suggesting things like you are talking about. Even in this thread
there has been plenty of misunderstanding.

>
> On 6 February 2014 16:48, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 06/02/2014 14:51, Dick Visser wrote:
>> >
>> > http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/blog/2013/12/campaign-turn-off-ipv4-on-6-june-2014-for-one-day/
>>
>> This is a terrible idea which will cause IPv6 to be associated with
>> gratuitous breakage.
>>
>> Nick
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dick Visser
> System & Networking Engineer
> TERENA Secretariat
> Singel 468 D, 1017 AW Amsterdam
> The Netherlands



--
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry

On 2/6/14, Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Andrew 👽 Yourtchenko
> <ayourtch@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Maybe transforming this into a "taking a day off and using this time
>> to educate the others and help them with their IPv6 deployment" could
>> be a better option ?
>>
>> Take a day off because you can't do work without IPv6 and then use
>> this time to configure an IPv6-only SSID with NAT64 on a network where
>> you *do* have control (may be still a different segment at work, or
>> maybe your home network) or test a couple of apps and submit bug
>> reports - how does this sound ?
>
> *This* sounds much better that the original idea of breaking things, I'd
> say.

Can you (or someone else reading this :) take a shot at a less clumsy
wording than I managed to produce, so that it would be good enough to
tweak the text on AVAAZ ?

Then I'll put it there and hopefully avoid more misunderstandings.

>
> ...hmmm...should such a day off be classified as 'for religious reasons'?
> ;)))

ouuuugh now that was a dangerous one ! :-)))

--a

>
> --
> SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry
>

Hi,

Thus wrote Nick Hilliard (nick@foobar.org):

[...]
> If you cause them to lose access to
> their online things, then ipv6 will stick in their mind as the thing which
> caused this problem. This is not going to be productive.

Not necessarily, depends on how you phrase it.

We aren't there yet (still), but eventually, giving people who connect
via IPv4 to web services the usual info delay splashscreen saying:
"You are connecting via IPv4. This is the legacy Internet protocol
which won't be supported that much longer. Please talk to your provider
about your options for using the current Internet protocol (IPv6)."
will not point fingers at IPv6, but at IPv4.

Maybe in 2020 ...

regards,
spz
--
spz@serpens.de (S.P.Zeidler)