Keith Moore wrote:
... when the support people for a fairly well-established telco
haven't even heard of IPv6, it's hard to believe that it's going
to be available anytime soon.
[multiple people essentially reporting the same]
At this point in time $ISP has no immediate plans for implementation.
I would say it's about time reality finally settles in.
Keith Moore wrote:
Meanwhile, 6to4 continues to work just fine for me.
So please explain again why it isn't premature to
discourage a valuable transition mechanism?
On that one I agree with Keith; where's the rush? Although imperfect,
6to4 was an obvious path and its demise would be the failure of the
IETF, following a long list of things that have been killed prematurely.
Anyone who doesn't believe we have a major marketing
problem here isn't paying attention.
Hmm that is a point of view. You think you have a solution (IPv6) to
what you perceive to be a problem (shortage of IPv4 addresses).
However, some ISPs (and some other companies) do not consider it a
problem, but a blessing. What the IPv4 shortage does is that it prevents
new large players to enter the field, while allowing existing players to
continue to do business as usual.
As the shortage as been predicted for a decade, some (not all) have
stockpiled addresses and are now reaping the benefits. In business, this
situation is worth solid gold: it's called a monopoly. I'm fat and
happy, and I want it to continue. In this case, it's even better:
companies who benefit from it can argue that they are not the ones who
created the monopoly, it was a built-in limitation of the system as
Some may not like the parallel, but we have failed the IPv6 migration
the same way we have failed the war on drugs. A while ago, there was
this thing called the Tier-1 cartel. As originally designed, a very
elusive club, with almost no way in and absolutely no tears when a
member gets de-peered.
Some have said that the cartel has failed as a system (due to a large
number of multilateral peering agreements and other factors). But now
what we have is a much larger number of largely unorganized but sharing
the same goals entities: those who already have IPv4 addresses. It's
When a resource becomes scare or limited, the big picture is not how
much of it is available, or how much it costs. The big picture is how
much of the market one does control. Now we are in the situation where
everyone and their sister own a piece of the pie, and as long as the
price of the pie keeps going up, they're going to cling to it.
On top of the marketing problem you mentioned, you have a bigger one:
there are many, many organizations out there that, even if you paid them
to deploy IPv6, would not. Because IPv6 is a territorial threat to them.
While the new or wannabe players would like the extra address space, the
sad truth is that the already establish players don't like newly open
spaces and prefer the territory control that comes with owning a piece
of a limited land space.
Ietf mailing list