In your letter dated Sat, 17 May 2014 20:22:29 +0200 you wrote:
The point is: while the RIPE meeting might be able to affort using a 1000 public IPv4 addresses on a conference network, not everyone will be able to do this in the future. So you'll see IPv6+NAT44 or IPv6+NAT64, and it's very good to make this crystal clear to application developers (fosdem) and networking people (ripe), so they can see if stuff needs fixing.
So, we have one option, (IPv6+NAT44), no stuff needs fixing. We have another option, (IPv6+NAT64), stuff needs fixing. Maybe somebody needs to come up with a good justification for using NAT64 in the first place? (For networks other then ones with strange restrictions like 3G) Obviously, this is a very good argument for running NAT64 on an experimental network.
Why require IPv4 in the first place? Make sure the destination and the applications in question work over IPv6, done.
Yes. Let's make it such that the mail server that handles this list only accepts and delivers mail over IPv6. :-) Any of the current or prospective chairs willing to propose that?
And complain about dual stack devices (like Android) that just don't support the tunneling protocol of the day.
A device that just plain fails to operate on an IPv6-only network has nothing to do with "tunneling protocol of the day".
As far as I know, the only thing everybody cares about is IPv4 connectivity. That's why NAT464 was developed. Nobody seriously proposes to make an IPv6-only only network the default. At FOSDEM, usually the wifi in the big halls is completely overloaded. The best trick is then to go to the IPv6-only network, because nobody is using it. So, yes the IPv6-only option for Android would be really useful for FOSDEM. But not much else.