Sean does have a habit of asking questions that highlight the fact that
IPv6 isn't ready for wide-spread production deployment.
While I welcome Sean's input as a backbone operator, his long-running
disdain for IPv6 is also well known. Perhaps my previous response was
a bit hasty from this perspective. Saying more only invites further
misinterpretation.
What this thread has made clear is that there continues to be a need
for more education about what IPv6 does and does not do. One of the
things that inhibits the overall discussion and accentuates the gulf
between the two communities, is folks claiming IPv6 does X (which it
does not do, or is an *option* rather than a *requirement*) and then
proceeding to begin discussion based on a faulty premise. Earlier
postings assuming trivial and automatic renumbering in IPv6 are one
example. Another is implying that IPv6 has a "new multihoming model"
that replaces (as opposed to supplementing) the existing models used
in IPv4, even in cases where the IPv4 approach would appear to work
fine. (It is probably worth noting that in the case of multihoming, it
is far from clear that the current approaches used in IPv4 will scale
properly, hence the reason for pursuing additional approaches in
IPv6). It's also worth reiterating that multihoming work in IPv6 is
still an on-going effort, and more input (especially from operators is
needed). I encourage interested persons to join the ipng mailing list
and participate.
Finally, the ietf list is really not the best place to have a serious
technical discussion about IPv6 shortcomings. I know of IPv6 experts
who aren't subscribed to this list.
A more appropriate response might be to aggressively promote IPv4/IPv6
migration at IETF meetings. You might:
o Coordinate an IPv6 migration help desk at the IETF that will
help attendees upgrade their laptops to run IPv6,
o Run IPv6 (only) on the desktop machines at the IETF,
o Publish traffic statistics that compare the volume of IPv4
versus IPv6 usage at the IETF meetings,
o Set an objective for when the IPv6 traffic is at least as great
as IPv4 traffic at IETF meetings, and
o Set an objective for when IETF meetings will support only
IPv6.
Some of these suggestions have merit, and I believe that help has been
available at IETF meetings (though perhaps not well advertised) for
those that want to run IPv6. (IPv6 services have been available at
IETF meetings for some time -- if you have an IPv6 enabled on your
laptop, it just works.) On the other hand, setting an objective for
when IETF meetings support IPv6 only is unrealistic. IPv6 will take
decades to completely displace IPv4. Also, the hard issues about
disabling IPv4 at an IETF (which is what I interpret your suggestion
of IPv6-only above to be) only works when all the end sites that
IETFers communicate with are IPv6-enabled. We have little control over
that.
Thomas