lip Hallam-Baker writes:
We keep coming back to the same old problem and the same reasons we
are going to hope it solves itself without having to change anything.
1) Its the wrong type of pain
IPv4 exhaustion does cause problems, but not really enough problems or
immediate enough problems to create an incentive to move away from the
It really does not matter very much to the typical Internet user if
there are other people unable to join the party. It matters even less
to them if those people are in far away countries.
2) NAT-NAT IPv4 still beats IPv6
But we are not talking NAT-NAT IPv4 vs IPv6. We are talking
NAT-NAT/Distributed NAT IPv4 with plain IPv6.
Even with the restrictions of carrier NAT, most Internet users are
going to prefer an Internet connection that gives access to the
millions of IPv4 hosts than the hundreds of IPv6 hosts.
If you present it to them that way then they would agree with you.
If you present it to them as NAT-NAT along or NAT-NAT plus IPv6 you
will get a different answer especially when IPv6 is not more
complicated than IPv4 is today.
This is an adoption trap. Nobody is going to move to IPv6 unless the
functionality is superior to IPv4.
Saying that IPv6 is X years behind is to miss the point.
3) There is no ask
ISOC and others are very good at putting out these stories warning
about the imminent IPv4 exhaustion. But this is wasted effort when
the message reaches people who can do nothing in response.
For a message to be effective, there has to be an ask, there has to be
something concrete that the audience can do in response.
As before I will suggest how I would address the issue:
Every technology company that has wanted to establish an
infrastructure to support their product has used branding as leverage.
Remember 'Novell Ready', 'Entrust Ready', 'Windows Vista Ready'?
We need an Internet Next Ready. And when consumers see that brand they
need to know that what they are getting is going to work with the next
generation Internet. Demanding 'Internet Next Ready' in new products,
in Internet service is the ask.
Most of the equipment they already have is IPv6 ready. It's the
home router that isn't.
2) Design for deployment
People are not going to use IPv6 if it takes the slightest effort on
their part. People are not going to switch their home networks over to
IPv6 if it means a single device on the network is going to stop
working. In my case it would cost me $4K to upgrade my 48" plotter to
an IPv6 capable system. No way is that going to happen till there are
$50 IPv6 plotters on EBay.
Turning on IPv6 does not mean that you have to turn off IPv4. You
can continue to use IPv4 until you no longer need to use it.
I try to do as little management of my home network as possible. For
the architecture to be acceptable it has to be totally transparent to
me. Otherwise carrier grade NAT is going to be preferable as at least
that is going to work.
Except for the additional things that it breaks.
3) Create incentives
Even with branding, the incentives have to make sense. Merely having
access to the IPv6 Internet available is not going to cause people to
use it. Pretty much every host on the Internet can use IPSEC at this
point. The portion that use it is ~ 0%.
Actually it is well above zero and lots of people are using it
without being aware that they are using it. If you turn on IPv6
on your servers you will get traffic.
The way that I plot out a campaign is to list every stakeholder that I
need to take action. I consider the positive/negative balance sheet
from their point of view. I look at the incentive they have to take
action and how they are to get the message that they need to take
Now I can draft out an architecture that would have the necessary
properties quite easily. And so could many others on this list. But
that would be a mistake. In order to get buy in from all the people
whose buy in is needed, they have to be involved at the design stage.
Having the had the opportunity to be involved is not the same thing.
Ietf mailing list
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org
Ietf mailing list