ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: How the IPnG effort was started

2004-11-19 13:27:10
Many folks responding to this thread don't seem to be following the arguments very closely.

Let me summarize:
1.  Everyone agrees that the current situation is untenable.
I can't think of anyone who said it'll last forever.

2.  Some people think we've already run out of address space.

3.  Some people think we soon will.

4.  Everyone laments the brokenness of NAT-based solutions.

5. Some people think that we just need to wait a bit longer and IPv6 will "tip" to the point that it sees widespread deployment. These folks seem to be gauging their expectations based on the deployment of the features in shipping products. This appears to be a variation on the "if you build it, they will come" thought process that was prevalent during the 1990s.

6. Some people also seem to think that widespread deployment of IPv6 means no NAT. I'm not convinced of this. If it doesn't happen, then currently broken services will stay broken.

7. Some people think that we have seen enough, IPv6 isn't going to take off and we need to start thinking hard about something else. I, for one, fall in this camp. I don't think IPv6 will ever "take off". My reasons are thus:

1. Users don't care about IPv4/IPv6 - only providers do. Sometimes, within a user organization, there is an IT department that cares, but that's because they are an enterprise-level provider.

2. Providers don't provide IPv6 because they have no incentive to do so. [The only counter to this I've seen presented in an article showing that a *manufacturer* provides the IPv6 capability in their cell phones. But, as we see with BlueTooth (which has been much more widely adopted than IPv6, afaict), *service providers* such as Verizon Wireless feel perfectly free to not use - or even *remove* these capabilities.]

3. Content [which is the only reason for users to demand that providers provide the service] that is IPv6 only is lacking. There's lots of nice stuff that might be done *better* with IPv6 (or possibly even not done at all without IPv6), but I'm not aware of any spiffy service that I need/want/like that is IPv6 only. Nor am I aware of a service that is currently not working because I'm behind an IPv4+NAT setup, which will magically start working if I use 6to4. Please let me know if I'm wrong, because that would be fantastic!

Legislation might force this change over. Some have suggested that adoption of IPv6 in non-US countries is hindered by the perception that it is another US "standard" being forced on them. Others still have suggested that you can play on the notion that now is the time to get in while you can still get addresses (before the US eats them all up). That's all well and good if it happens. I don't think that the IETF should be waiting around for this day to come.

Now, someone brought up an interesting perspective: that the end users would deploy IPv6 w/out support from their service providers, allowing the service providers to 'catch up' later. I see a few problems with this notion:

1. Users can't get IPv6 address space from registrars, who are trying to implement a policy beneficial to the service providers. This means that people are stuck using their existing IPv4 space in compatibility mode if they are to "route around their providers".

2. Someone suggested the you simply use a different provider for IPv6 than IPv4. Presumably, in this scenario, you get your address space from this new provider, then establish a 6to4 tunnel to them. I mean, no one's seriously suggesting an organization throw real money down on yet another circuit to yet another provider just to get IPv6 connectivity for particular reason, right? And, presumably, the IPv6 provider isn't actually *charging* for this service, right?

3. Users don't care about IPv6. If it's on and it just works, they'll use it. Otherwise, they won't without some serious incentivizing.

Small data point that may be interesting to some people: getting IPv6 access on a modern Macintosh computer using 6to4 is as simple as selecting "Network Port Configurations" in the network preferences pane, and ticking "6to4". That's it -- instant dancing kame.

It's a bit trickier than that - you have to *create* the 6to4 network port the first time. But, once you've created it, it's just a matter of clicking the checkbox.

--jon


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf