Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2012-02-14 05:51, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: Arturo Servin <arturo(_dot_)servin(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
>> Are you volunteering to buy everyone on earth a new CPE? If not, who
>> do you suggest will?
> I suggest the ISPs, they are charging for the service, right?
Lots of CPE is actually owned by the customers, not the ISPs. E.g. in our
house, both our cable modem and the router attached to it are ours.
Sure, that's very common, but these devices are consumer electronics and
will get gradually replaced by IPv6-supporting boxes as time goes on.
(That is not hand-waving, the generation of boxes with IPv6 support is
starting to appear.) Nobody, I think, is denying that there will be a long
period of coexistence as a result.
That is a separate question from this draft, which gives ISPs space for
*growing* their IPv4 customer base. I think that is what upsets people.
The problem of ISP not newly shipping CPE that is not IPv6 capable
needs to be addressed by regulatory power (legistation), rather than
by ignorance of the part of the IETF.
ISPs *growing* their IPv4 customer base is a natural side effect
whenever ISPs allow customers to use equipment that they already
have (and might have been using with a different ISP before).
The vast majority of customers does not know or care about not having IPv6,
because there is _very_ few equipment that is vitally dependent on IPv6,
vs. huge amounts of equiment that requires IPv4. If I had a CPE that
supported IPv6 (mine is from early 2006 an IPv4-only), my concern would
be how to reliably switch IPv6 off, because of the unsolved security and
privacy problems that IPv6 brings along.
It was the IETFs very own decision to build IPv6 in a fashion that it is
not transparently backwards compatible with IPv4. If the is anyone to
blame for the current situation, than it is the IETF, not the consumers
or the ISPs (except for those folks at ISPs who participated in the
development of IPv6).
Ietf mailing list