Re: How the IPnG effort was started

On Nov 19, 2004, at 16:23, Joe Abley wrote:

> >   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?
> Tunnels don't cost real money. They cost pretend money.
It seems clear to me, based on this statement, that you have no concept 
of what your talking about.  Tunnels eat up resources - resources cost 
money.  Therefore, tunnels cost money.  You talk like someone who 
doesn't pay the bills.  You must be an engineer.  Or a student.
That issue aside, you have a tendency to talk past the point I'm 
raising - which is that no one is going to actually pay to put in yet 
another wide-area circuit just to support IPv6 for non-existent 
services that they can receive only via IPv6.
> However, my point is that the argument "even if I wanted to, I can't 
> use IPv6 because my ISP doesn't support it" should be marked down as 
> "false, incorrect, rigourously debunked".
  Why are you arguing a strawman?  No one said you can't use IPv6 if 
your ISP doesn't support it.   Everyone knows it's possible - otherwise 
there never would have been a 6bone to begin with!
 The issue is whether or not it will become ubiquitous to a large 
enough degree that ISPs will begin to support it.
> So the argument "I can't get IPv6 addresses because my provider 
> doesn't have any to give me" is false, by extension. The trick with 
> that one is to find a provider who can give some to you.
  The 'trick' as you put it adds another level of difficulty in the way 
of the end-user adopting it.  Which weighs the scale against it ever 
being adopted in a wide-spread fashion.  When one wants to encourage 
adoption of a technology, one does not erect barriers to its adoption - 
unless exclusivity is a key component of the appeal in the first place. 
 Presumably, that is not so for IPv6.
> > And, presumably, the IPv6 provider isn't actually *charging* for this 
> > service, right?
> I'm not aware of any v6-over-tunnel providers who charge money.
  Yet.  If you think IPv6 tunnels will be free forever, then I can see 
there's not point talking with you about this issue as you have no 
grasp on the basic economics of technology adoption.
  If ISPs do not start offering native IPv6 support - and it achieves 
any kind of substantial adoption - v6 tunnels will become non-zero 
cost.  The more people do them, the more they will cost.  The higher 
the bandwidth pumped over them, the higher the cost.  When the traffic 
load becomes large enough that major tunnel providers spend dollars to 
hook together their equipment to run IPv6 natively to each other, the 
cost will go even higher.
  The only reason they're free now is because they don't get any 
substantial use.  In other words, there is no demand.
> Oh right, that rings a bell. Even with those three extra clicks, I 
> still bet my mother could do it.
  In case it hasn't been made clear, the relative techno-savy of your 
mother has not be called into question by anyone, other than perhaps 
yourself.  Further, you might note, should you choose to actually 
*read* what I write, that I didn't ever disagree with you.  I just 
corrected an oversight on your part, no need to get snippy about it.  
Finally, we could turn this into a Mac OS X / Apple advocacy thread, 
but this isn't the appropriate forum.  Besides, then we'd have to be on 
the same side.
  Point in fact, I turned on 6to4 on my PowerMac.  Got a tunnel 
connection and everything.  So I enabled it on my iBook.  Nothing.  Not 
a stinking thing.  Now, what's the no-brainer way to get my 
auto-magically allocated /48 to work between my two devices locally?  
Or for me to get a tunnel from *both* of them simultaneously - I did 
mention I'm behind a NAT, didn't I?  Oh, yeah, then there's the wife's 
mac, the kids' mac and the linux server, not to mention the windows 
boxes....  good thing this stuff just "works" out of the box.
  No one's argued here that it's "dead simple' - except you.  I think 
things aren't quite as simple as you'd like to believe they are.  
Perhaps you should quit while you still think you're ahead.
  The point of the thread isn't to discuss how easy it is or isn't to 
configure IPv6.
  However, it's become clear that there's no having an open discussion 
about this deeply held believe some have that IPv6 is going to take off 
any day now.  Oh well, at least we got some decent Apple advocacy done.
--jon


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