The IETF has not to date taken the type of actions that enable it to influence
the Internet. The limitation to having a consensus seeking design is that it
limits your ability to project policy to external forums.
In particular the relationship of the IETF to the rest of the Internet
infrastructure is largely 'write only'. The IETF will be glad to share its
views with others but has not established the type of infrastructure to
actively listen. anyone who wants to influence the IETF is told that they need
to get involved in the IETF personally, and the minute they do that they cease
speaking on behalf of MAAWG or APWG, or W3C or Microsoft or Cisco or AT&T or
any of the other constituencies that beleive that they have a stake in this
issue.
The result is that the discussion tends to be driven by people who see the
Internet in a totally different perspective to the typical Internet user.
While wrting The dotCrime Manifesto I kept having to ask myself 'why with all
this cool cryptographic technology available did we fail to deploy so much of
it', I don't think the problem was lack of interest or even the patents. The
base problem was that we were trying to solve the security problems of a
different Internet infrastructure to the one that was emerging.
The only dog I have in this particular fight is that if the IETF can find a way
to be influential in deploying IPv6 it can maybe find a way to be influential
in deploying the Accountable Web I argue for in dotCrime. Conversely if I find
a way to be influential in arguing for a accountability based security
infrastructure in the Internet I am going to be thinking about what can be done
to leverage for the IPv6 transition at the same time.
I have been talking to the stakeholders and I think I have a pretty good idea
of what the issues that concern them are. What I am missing is the relative
strength of those drivers and timing. We need to begin by listening.
The principal concern I would have as an ISP is that I know that the IPv6
transition will become essential at some point in the future. I would therefore
want to know what steps I can take now that will insulate the capital
investment I am making today from those changes. Replacing cable modems is a
very epensive proposition, even a flash upgrade can incur a serious cost.
Better to minimize those costs now if I can by pushing the features I need into
the DOCSIS, WiMAX and ADSL specifications.
________________________________
From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb(_at_)bollow(_dot_)ch]
Sent: Tue 18/12/2007 3:52 AM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Incentives for using v6 (was Re: IPv4 Outage Planned...)
Eliot Lear <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
I think the thing people are struggling with is much more basic:
individuals don't get anything by moving to v6. With wireless I got
freedom from having to stick a cable here or there. Maybe we should
hand out lollipops or something for those who use v6.
I totally agree with your line of thinking, and I'd propose that
the one incentive for using v6 which would successfully convince
end users to switch to v6 would be if that way, they could get a
(subjectively at least) much faster connection at the same price.
The key question therefore is this: Are we able to influence the
majority of the large ISPs to do something like that?
Greetings,
Norbert.
--
Norbert Bollow <nb(_at_)bollow(_dot_)ch> http://Norbert.ch
<http://norbert.ch/>
President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch
<http://siug.ch/>
Working on establishing a non-corrupt and
truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org
<http://openiso.org/>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf