I assert that one of the critical stumbling blocks to
acceptance of IPv6 by *ANY* large provider is the open
hostility of many of the "leaders" of the IPNG effort
towards those of us in the trenches.
I think that is an unwarranted generalisation, I really do.
Let's say that we all need to think carefully about how we
phrase our postings, to avoid them being misinterpreted.
I would have to get too deep into personalities if I said any more.
Indeed, the whole ROAD process, and everything since has
to me turned its back on people actually OPERATING the
Internet as experienced resources who could help improve IPv6.
Well I seem to remember plenty of operational people in CIDRD,
which was also part of the ROAD follow-up. But there has indeed
been a lack of operational people active in the IPv6 WGs.
The IPv6-related WGs are as open as every other IETF WG, so if there
has been limited participation by large providers that is their choice.
But that has consequences, such as
a) large provider concerns have not been voiced as much as
desirable in the WGs;
and b) in some cases large providers appear to have incomplete
or out of date ideas about how IPv6 is actually specified
[example: "when one connects to an IPv6 provider,
one's border router automatically acquires a range of
addresses from that provider" is untrue; it isn't automatic.
I wish it was.]
Now I don't blame the large providers particularly for this; they
have a network to run. But in certain areas, such as multihoming, we
badly need provider input - especially now.
I must add one thing. Provider input has to be part of the design
dialogue. It's no good if providers show up, say "you must do X",
and then don't stay for the discussion of whether X works in the
total picture. Life is still a compromise.