[Witarea] Re: [v6ops] Re: How to make an elegant IPv4 outage
Nick Buraglio <[email protected]> Sun, 7 Jun 2026 17:32:24 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.tsv-area,gmane.ietf.general,gmane.ietf.v6ops |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CACMsEX9pHnVgG3dp2CyYmeYHPGNQWySoxOaOFiotQzT+oJMfBg@mail.gmail.com> |
--===============0391482577813207739== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007296ae0653ab9aa9" --0000000000007296ae0653ab9aa9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +1 We have done k8s with IPv6-only in our data centers and once the initial hurdles are past, it is significantly easier to work with. Where the complications lie are in the random libraries inside of random containers, and in some cases in the container repositories. I=E2=80=99m curious to see what your experience is/was, and how it differed= from ours, if at all. nb On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 10:21 Xipengxiao <xipengxiao=3D [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Franck, > > You are very welcome to take the lead on "Deploying IPv6 in the Data > Center/Enterprises". We look forward to your drafts. > > XiPeng > > -----Original Message----- > From: Franck Martin <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2026 1:51 AM > To: Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> > Cc: S Moonesamy <[email protected]>; witarea <[email protected]>; ietf = < > [email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: [v6ops] Re: How to make an elegant IPv4 outage > > Adding v6ops to the list of Cc > > Brian, > > Getting myself up to date with the v6ops. > > I see there is a milestone to adopt by dec 2026 Deploying IPv6 in the Dat= a > Center and Deploying IPv6 in the Enterprise. I have some experience with > this having done that at LinkedIn and been very close to an IPv6-only > deployment. I also was aware of what was happening at the mothership at > Microsoft. > > I don=E2=80=99t see any lead for this besides the WG chair. I would be ha= ppy to > contribute and may be to reach out to folks. I quickly looked through the > archives but did not see anything obvious on those topics. > > Franck > > > On Jun 3, 2026, at 15:34, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]= m> > wrote: > > > > Franck, > > > > You definitely need to keep [email protected] aware of this. > > > > I assume you are aware of > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-palet-v6ops-ipv6-only/ and other > work in v6ops related to IPv6-only and IPv6-mostly. > > > > Regards/Ng=C4=81 mihi > > Brian Carpenter > > > > On 04-Jun-26 09:29, Franck Martin wrote: > >> Moving to Witarea, but keeping ietf in the loop for the moment. > >> Hi Surya, > >> Many thanks for those great points. > >>> On Jun 3, 2026, at 13:00, S Moonesamy <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Franck, > >>> > >>> [Cc to witarea@] > >>> > >>> At 11:32 AM 03-06-2026, Franck Martin wrote: > >>>> Today I submitted this Internet Draft (I-D) to the IETF > >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-martin-retry-over-ipv6/ > >>>> > >>>> I have been building this site: pacific.ipv6forum.com and I have > been wondering, how could I do an IPv4 outage on this site on 6/6? > >>>> > >>>> I have also seen that Czechoslovakia has mandated the end of IPv4 on > government sites on 6/6/2032, 6 years from now. > >>>> > >>>> I also recall (from recent experience) that it is relatively easy to > reach >90% of IPv6 connections to an internal network (think datacenter), > but the remaining last % are difficult to identify (or discard) because > services may misbehave and prefer IPv4 from time to time: You don't know = if > they can't really do IPv4 or if they did not bother to do IPv6. > >>>> > >>>> In an enterprise environment, micro-services are made redundant, > there are multiple IPs and have fallback mechanisms when they encounter a > 5xx error on one endpoint. > >>>> > >>>> So, I started to work on this Internet Draft. It is ready for the > first round of public comments. I suspect, if successful, it will take 1 = or > 2 years to make it a standard. Then an extra 1 or 2 years, before it is > implemented on enough clients (and browsers), we will be just in time for > doing enough IPv4 outages on 6/6 to meet the 6/6/2032 deadline. > >>> > >>> There is a recent thread about IPv6 at > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/BxSOgbF34xbBcijtxf85Pfnb5tc/ I > don't remember seeing anything resulting from that discussion. Having a > draft is, relatively, better than the usual email discussion. The draft > falls under the WIT Area and v6ops (which is in another IETF Area). > >> I quickly read the thread, and also asked for a summary. I agree with > many points like : some mobiles are IPv6-only (T-Mobile, Reliance,=E2=80= =A6), some > networks are IPv6-only on the management side (Comcast),.. StarLink is > moving the needle A LOT in small countries, see countries on > https://pacific.ipv6forum.com <https://pacific.ipv6forum.com>.. but yes > the frontier is Entreprise adoption. I have some experience here that I= =E2=80=99m > trying to share. > >>> > >>> Section 1.1 of the draft states that "Governments are also publishing > fixed IPv4 end dates" and lists one example [1]. Are there any other > governments which have a fixed end date? > >> I am not aware of other governments that have published an equally > >> specific =E2=80=9CIPv4 service ends on <date>=E2=80=9D policy for thei= r public > >> services. Several others publish IPv6 transition *milestones* rather > >> than a fixed IPv4 shutdown date =E2=80=94 for example, US OMB M-21-07 = (80% of > >> federal IP-enabled assets in IPv6-only environments by FY 2025, with > >> strategic intent to phase out IPv4): > >> https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/M-21-07.pdf > >> The Netherlands and others have long-standing IPv6 =E2=80=9Cuse-or-exp= lain=E2=80=9D or > adoption targets, but not, to my knowledge, a single published IPv4 end > date comparable to the Czech case. > >> There was also a memo from the State of Washington going in the same > >> direction=E2=80=A6 I used to track all those=E2=80=A6 looks like I nee= d to do that > again. > >> And I agree that those memos come and go=E2=80=A6 Why? Because it is n= ot > trivial, we (IETF?) ought to make it easier. > >>> > >>> Section 3 of the draft states that "Many operators plan to remove or > disable IPv4 while retaining IPv6 service." Are those plans available on > the operators' websites? > >> I tend to abuse the word =E2=80=9CMany=E2=80=9D, you caught me! I make= a note to change > it to =E2=80=9CSome" > >> That being said: > >> * Meta is IPv6-only in their data centers: > >> https://engineering.fb.com/2017/01/17/production-engineering/legacy-s > >> upport-on-ipv6-only-infra/ > >> <https://engineering.fb.com/2017/01/17/production-engineering/legacy- > >> support-on-ipv6-only-infra/> > >> * Google Cloud has guidance for IPv6-only: > >> https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/networking/connect-ipv6-only-w > >> orkloads-to-ipv4-with-dns64-and-nat64 > >> <https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/networking/connect-ipv6-only- > >> workloads-to-ipv4-with-dns64-and-nat64> > >> * All the could providers are moving to support IPv6 (because for > >> instance K8S bring undue complexity when you use NAT, also with the > >> explosion of AI agents, this will not be sustainable, I=E2=80=99m not = worry, > >> they can afford to buy large chunks of IPv4 - side note: I spoke > >> recently with a banker on why IPv4 is not on the balance sheet of > >> companies?) > >> * Cisco has an IPv6-only building: > >> https://blogs.cisco.com/networking/an-ipv6-campus-of-the-future > >> <https://blogs.cisco.com/networking/an-ipv6-campus-of-the-future> > >> * Orange is considering IPv6-only: > >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DahlY1vwM8qE > >> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DahlY1vwM8qE> > >> * Microsoft has IPv6-only deployments (I know that in Azure this is > >> way more complicated): > >> https://labs.ripe.net/author/mirjam/ipv6-only-at-microsoft/ > >> <https://labs.ripe.net/author/mirjam/ipv6-only-at-microsoft/> > >> * LinkedIn is moving to Dual Stack and IPv6-only in their Datacenters= . > I may point you to the links in this post: > https://www.patreon.com/posts/ipv6-in-lessons-159595711 where I share my > experience with IPv6. > >> On this last point, I want to say my motivation is more on how to make > life easier for internal deployments than external deployments. As such I > found out that making a software outage is easier than an infrastructure > outage, and easier and faster to rollback. =E2=80=9CYou can=E2=80=99t fix= what you don=E2=80=99t > measure=E2=80=9D, if you can differentiate an IPv4 outage from any other = outage, > then you don=E2=80=99t know what to fix. > >> I=E2=80=99m not expecting the web browsers to implement anything fast,= but I > think we can have =E2=80=9Cfaster=E2=80=9D implementation in open source = software like gRPC > and Rest.Li to make life easier in enterprises, therefore impacting other > software in those enterprises, which will lead to make it easier on the > public Internet... > >> So thanks for all those valid points, I=E2=80=99ll figure out how to b= etter > answer them in version -01. > >> I tried to address the same with email, a while back. See those expire= d > ID: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-martin-smtp-ipv6-to-ipv4-fallback/ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-martin-smtp-ipv6-to-ipv4-fallback= />, > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-martin-smtp-target-host-selection-= ipv4-ipv6/ > < > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-martin-smtp-target-host-selection-= ipv4-ipv6/>. > I hope this ID has a bit more chances. > >> Franck > >> PS: if any has more references of mandate or wannabe mandates, please > let me know. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> S. Moonesamy > >>> > >>> 1. The IPv6 adoption rate for a social network in that country is > 35.2%. > > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > --0000000000007296ae0653ab9aa9 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"auto">+1</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">We = have done k8s with IPv6-only in our data centers and once the initial hurdl= es are past, it is significantly easier to work with.=C2=A0</div><div dir= =3D"auto">Where the complications lie are in the random libraries inside of= random containers, and in some cases in the container repositories.=C2=A0<= /div><div dir=3D"auto">I=E2=80=99m curious to see what your experience is/w= as, and how it differed from ours, if at all.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto">= <br></div><div dir=3D"auto">nb</div><div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmai= l_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Fri, Jun 5, 202= 6 at 10:21 Xipengxiao <xipengxiao=3D<a href=3D"mailto:40huawei.com@dmarc= .ietf.org">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote = class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px sol= id rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi Franck,<br> <br> You are very welcome to take the lead on "Deploying IPv6 in the Data C= enter/Enterprises".=C2=A0 We look forward to your drafts.<br> <br> XiPeng <br> <br> -----Original Message-----<br> From: Franck Martin <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D= "_blank">[email protected]</a>> <br> Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2026 1:51 AM<br> To: Brian E Carpenter <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" ta= rget=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>><br> Cc: S Moonesamy <<a href=3D"mailto:sm%[email protected]" target=3D"_bl= ank">[email protected]</a>>; witarea <<a href=3D"mailto:witarea@ie= tf.org" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>>; ietf <<a href=3D"mai= lto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>>; <a href=3D"mail= to:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a><br> Subject: [v6ops] Re: How to make an elegant IPv4 outage<br> <br> Adding v6ops to the list of Cc<br> <br> Brian,<br> <br> Getting myself up to date with the v6ops.<br> <br> I see there is a milestone to adopt by dec 2026 Deploying IPv6 in the Data = Center and Deploying IPv6 in the Enterprise. I have some experience with th= is having done that at LinkedIn and been very close to an IPv6-only deploym= ent. I also was aware of what was happening at the mothership at Microsoft.= <br> <br> I don=E2=80=99t see any lead for this besides the WG chair. I would be happ= y to contribute and may be to reach out to folks. I quickly looked through = the archives but did not see anything obvious on those topics.<br> <br> Franck<br> <br> > On Jun 3, 2026, at 15:34, Brian E Carpenter <<a href=3D"mailto:bria= [email protected]" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>&= gt; wrote:<br> > <br> > Franck,<br> > <br> > You definitely need to keep <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target= =3D"_blank">[email protected]</a> aware of this.<br> > <br> > I assume you are aware of <a href=3D"https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/= draft-palet-v6ops-ipv6-only/" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://= datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-palet-v6ops-ipv6-only/</a> and other work in= v6ops related to IPv6-only and IPv6-mostly.<br> > <br> > Regards/Ng=C4=81 mihi<br> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0Brian Carpenter<br> > <br> > On 04-Jun-26 09:29, Franck Martin wrote:<br> >> Moving to Witarea, but keeping ietf in the loop for the moment.<br= > >> Hi Surya,<br> >> Many thanks for those great points.<br> >>> On Jun 3, 2026, at 13:00, S Moonesamy <<a href=3D"mailto:sm= %[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>> wrote:= <br> >>> <br> >>> Hi Franck,<br> >>> <br> >>> [Cc to witarea@]<br> >>> <br> >>> At 11:32 AM 03-06-2026, Franck Martin wrote:<br> >>>> Today I submitted this Internet Draft (I-D) to the IETF <b= r> >>>> <a href=3D"https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-martin-r= etry-over-ipv6/" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://datatracker.i= etf.org/doc/draft-martin-retry-over-ipv6/</a><br> >>>> <br> >>>> I have been building this site: <a href=3D"http://pacific.= ipv6forum.com" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">pacific.ipv6forum.com</= a> and I have been wondering, how could I do an IPv4 outage on this site on= 6/6?<br> >>>> <br> >>>> I have also seen that Czechoslovakia has mandated the end = of IPv4 on government sites on 6/6/2032, 6 years from now.<br> >>>> <br> >>>> I also recall (from recent experience) that it is relative= ly easy to reach >90% of IPv6 connections to an internal network (think = datacenter), but the remaining last % are difficult to identify (or discard= ) because services may misbehave and prefer IPv4 from time to time: You don= 't know if they can't really do IPv4 or if they did not bother to d= o IPv6.<br> >>>> <br> >>>> In an enterprise environment, micro-services are made redu= ndant, there are multiple IPs and have fallback mechanisms when they encoun= ter a 5xx error on one endpoint.<br> >>>> <br> >>>> So, I started to work on this Internet Draft. It is ready = for the first round of public comments. I suspect, if successful, it will t= ake 1 or 2 years to make it a standard. Then an extra 1 or 2 years, before = it is implemented on enough clients (and browsers), we will be just in time= for doing enough IPv4 outages on 6/6 to meet the 6/6/2032 deadline.<br> >>> <br> >>> There is a recent thread about IPv6 at <a href=3D"https://mail= archive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/BxSOgbF34xbBcijtxf85Pfnb5tc/" rel=3D"norefer= rer" target=3D"_blank">https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/BxSOgbF34= xbBcijtxf85Pfnb5tc/</a> I don't remember seeing anything resulting from= that discussion.=C2=A0 Having a draft is, relatively, better than the usua= l email discussion.=C2=A0 The draft falls under the WIT Area and v6ops (whi= ch is in another IETF Area).<br> >> I quickly read the thread, and also asked for a summary. I agree w= ith many points like : some mobiles are IPv6-only (T-Mobile, Reliance,=E2= =80=A6), some networks are IPv6-only on the management side (Comcast),.. St= arLink is moving the needle A LOT in small countries, see countries on <a h= ref=3D"https://pacific.ipv6forum.com" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">= https://pacific.ipv6forum.com</a> <<a href=3D"https://pacific.ipv6forum.= com" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://pacific.ipv6forum.com</a>= >.. but yes the frontier is Entreprise adoption. I have some experience = here that I=E2=80=99m trying to share.<br> >>> <br> >>> Section 1.1 of the draft states that "Governments are als= o publishing fixed IPv4 end dates" and lists one example [1].=C2=A0 Ar= e there any other governments which have a fixed end date?<br> >> I am not aware of other governments that have published an equally= <br> >> specific =E2=80=9CIPv4 service ends on <date>=E2=80=9D polic= y for their public <br> >> services. Several others publish IPv6 transition *milestones* rath= er <br> >> than a fixed IPv4 shutdown date =E2=80=94 for example, US OMB M-21= -07 (80% of <br> >> federal IP-enabled assets in IPv6-only environments by FY 2025, wi= th <br> >> strategic intent to phase out IPv4): <br> >> <a href=3D"https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/M= -21-07.pdf" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://www.whitehouse.gov= /wp-content/uploads/2020/11/M-21-07.pdf</a><br> >> The Netherlands and others have long-standing IPv6 =E2=80=9Cuse-or= -explain=E2=80=9D or adoption targets, but not, to my knowledge, a single p= ublished IPv4 end date comparable to the Czech case.<br> >> There was also a memo from the State of Washington going in the sa= me <br> >> direction=E2=80=A6 I used to track all those=E2=80=A6 looks like I= need to do that again.<br> >> And I agree that those memos come and go=E2=80=A6 Why? Because it = is not trivial, we (IETF?) ought to make it easier.<br> >>> <br> >>> Section 3 of the draft states that "Many operators plan t= o remove or disable IPv4 while retaining IPv6 service."=C2=A0 Are thos= e plans available on the operators' websites?<br> >> I tend to abuse the word =E2=80=9CMany=E2=80=9D, you caught me! I = make a note to change it to =E2=80=9CSome"<br> >> That being said:<br> >>=C2=A0 * Meta is IPv6-only in their data centers: <br> >> <a href=3D"https://engineering.fb.com/2017/01/17/production-engine= ering/legacy-s" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://engineering.fb= .com/2017/01/17/production-engineering/legacy-s</a><br> >> upport-on-ipv6-only-infra/ <br> >> <<a href=3D"https://engineering.fb.com/2017/01/17/production-en= gineering/legacy-" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://engineering= .fb.com/2017/01/17/production-engineering/legacy-</a><br> >> support-on-ipv6-only-infra/><br> >>=C2=A0 * Google Cloud has guidance for IPv6-only: <br> >> <a href=3D"https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/networking/conne= ct-ipv6-only-w" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://cloud.google.c= om/blog/products/networking/connect-ipv6-only-w</a><br> >> orkloads-to-ipv4-with-dns64-and-nat64 <br> >> <<a href=3D"https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/networking/c= onnect-ipv6-only-" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://cloud.googl= e.com/blog/products/networking/connect-ipv6-only-</a><br> >> workloads-to-ipv4-with-dns64-and-nat64><br> >>=C2=A0 * All the could providers are moving to support IPv6 (becaus= e for <br> >> instance K8S bring undue complexity when you use NAT, also with th= e <br> >> explosion of AI agents, this will not be sustainable, I=E2=80=99m = not worry, <br> >> they can afford to buy large chunks of IPv4 - side note: I spoke <= br> >> recently with a banker on why IPv4 is not on the balance sheet of = <br> >> companies?)<br> >>=C2=A0 * Cisco has an IPv6-only building: <br> >> <a href=3D"https://blogs.cisco.com/networking/an-ipv6-campus-of-th= e-future" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://blogs.cisco.com/netw= orking/an-ipv6-campus-of-the-future</a> <br> >> <<a href=3D"https://blogs.cisco.com/networking/an-ipv6-campus-o= f-the-future" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://blogs.cisco.com/= networking/an-ipv6-campus-of-the-future</a>><br> >>=C2=A0 * Orange is considering IPv6-only: <br> >> <a href=3D"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DahlY1vwM8qE" rel=3D"n= oreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DahlY1vwM8qE<= /a> <br> >> <<a href=3D"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DahlY1vwM8qE" rel= =3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DahlY1vw= M8qE</a>><br> >>=C2=A0 * Microsoft has IPv6-only deployments (I know that in Azure = this is <br> >> way more complicated): <br> >> <a href=3D"https://labs.ripe.net/author/mirjam/ipv6-only-at-micros= oft/" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://labs.ripe.net/author/mir= jam/ipv6-only-at-microsoft/</a> <br> >> <<a href=3D"https://labs.ripe.net/author/mirjam/ipv6-only-at-mi= crosoft/" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://labs.ripe.net/author= /mirjam/ipv6-only-at-microsoft/</a>><br> >>=C2=A0 * LinkedIn is moving to Dual Stack and IPv6-only in their Da= tacenters. I may point you to the links in this post: <a href=3D"https://ww= w.patreon.com/posts/ipv6-in-lessons-159595711" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D= "_blank">https://www.patreon.com/posts/ipv6-in-lessons-159595711</a> where = I share my experience with IPv6.<br> >> On this last point, I want to say my motivation is more on how to = make life easier for internal deployments than external deployments. As suc= h I found out that making a software outage is easier than an infrastructur= e outage, and easier and faster to rollback. =E2=80=9CYou can=E2=80=99t fix= what you don=E2=80=99t measure=E2=80=9D, if you can differentiate an IPv4 = outage from any other outage, then you don=E2=80=99t know what to fix.<br> >> I=E2=80=99m not expecting the web browsers to implement anything f= ast, but I think we can have =E2=80=9Cfaster=E2=80=9D implementation in ope= n source software like gRPC and Rest.Li to make life easier in enterprises,= therefore impacting other software in those enterprises, which will lead t= o make it easier on the public Internet...<br> >> So thanks for all those valid points, I=E2=80=99ll figure out how = to better answer them in version -01.<br> >> I tried to address the same with email, a while back. See those ex= pired ID: <a href=3D"https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-martin-smtp-ipv= 6-to-ipv4-fallback/" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://datatrack= er.ietf.org/doc/draft-martin-smtp-ipv6-to-ipv4-fallback/</a> <<a href=3D= "https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-martin-smtp-ipv6-to-ipv4-fallback/"= rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draf= t-martin-smtp-ipv6-to-ipv4-fallback/</a>>, <a href=3D"https://datatracke= r.ietf.org/doc/draft-martin-smtp-target-host-selection-ipv4-ipv6/" rel=3D"n= oreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-martin-= smtp-target-host-selection-ipv4-ipv6/</a> <<a href=3D"https://datatracke= r.ietf.org/doc/draft-martin-smtp-target-host-selection-ipv4-ipv6/" rel=3D"n= oreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-martin-= smtp-target-host-selection-ipv4-ipv6/</a>>. I hope this ID has a bit mor= e chances.<br> >> Franck<br> >> PS: if any has more references of mandate or wannabe mandates, ple= ase let me know.<br> >>> <br> >>> Regards,<br> >>> S. Moonesamy<br> >>> <br> >>> 1. The IPv6 adoption rate for a social network in that country= is 35.2%.<br> <br> _______________________________________________<br> v6ops mailing list -- <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">v= [email protected]</a><br> To unsubscribe send an email to <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" tar= get=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a><br> _______________________________________________<br> v6ops mailing list -- <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">v= [email protected]</a><br> To unsubscribe send an email to <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" tar= get=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a><br> </blockquote></div></div> --0000000000007296ae0653ab9aa9-- --===============0391482577813207739== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline LS0gCldpdGFyZWEgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0IC0tIHdpdGFyZWFAaWV0Zi5vcmcKVG8gdW5zdWJzY3Jp YmUgc2VuZCBhbiBlbWFpbCB0byB3aXRhcmVhLWxlYXZlQGlldGYub3JnCg== --===============0391482577813207739==--