[NCAP-Discuss] Current Status of the NCAP Project

[rubensk at nic.br]

> On 11 Nov 2022, at 12:52, Casey Deccio <casey at deccio.net> wrote:
> 
>> \On Nov 10, 2022, at 4:34 AM, James Galvin <galvin at elistx.com <mailto:galvin at elistx.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> I consider the following things better.
>> 
>> 1. Frankly, [lack of IPv6 support] was a serious technical gap in the 2012 Controlled Interruption
> 
> It is a fact that controlled interruption does not support IPv6.  While I do agree that IPv6 support is *desirable*, I am interested to know why you feel that this is a "serious technical gap".  And to be clear, I'm not talking about the general advancement of IPv6; I'm talking about the goals of controlled interruption.  I have taken time to write categories for technical consideration in the comparison doc, among which are the goals for alerting and data collection.  Also in that doc are descriptions of how controlled interruption and the other proposed techniques measure up.

It's not a serious gap, due to incredibly low number of IPv6-only hosts in today's Internet. When we add up IPv4-only hosts, dual-stack IPv4/IPv6 hosts and IPv6+464XLAT hosts, it goes a significant number of nines. Perhaps adding the actual number to the report could make it easier for readers to judge this for themselves ? Because the only failure mode of 2012 CI is an IPv6-only host.





Rubens



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20221111/7547de90/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 529 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20221111/7547de90/signature.asc>