Re: Last Call: <draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-14.txt>

+1.  One point I would like to make regarding not being encourage to 
move to IPv6, was increased when the RIRs established the new IPv4 
request "prove your need" policies.  It immediately strengthen the 
notion that we must keep our existing IPv4 Class C network because if 
we let it go, we might not be able to get it back.  If this policy was 
in place, when we first migrated to the net in the 90s', I could 
easily see a problem of being denied or hassled enough to show why our 
then new business plan should be enough.
IOW, the RIR policies only strengthen existing companies to be very 
careful about migrating to IPv6, which in itself is inherently complex 
and still long time. IPv4 is still required for reachability during 
any migration period which seems to me will be a very very long time.
Of course, a HDTV industry lobby can force federal legislation to 
force the migration and new equipment to be IPv6 ready.  But TVs is a 
consumer market mostly. With IP, its commercial interest as well, and 
there will be resistance if there is a major cost involved to make the 
change - or at least some federal subsidy will be demanded if its 
going to be forced.
Ma Bell did it right when they changed from 7 digit local calls to 
requiring the 10 digits today for new local area codes.  And this was 
before customers were legally allowed to "own" their phone numbers for 
life, make it transferable. I'm sure the ideal forward thinker at Ma 
Bell would of said, "If we are changing it number to 10, why not get 
ready and make it 16 or 20?"  I think that would be been harder to do 
to make that change. 10 was good because it was already part of the 
people's mindset to make the non-local call.  Not the same analogy of 
course, its possible to add more digits to reach any end-phone.  Not 
possible with IPv4 unless a port is used which is the only possible 
extension to it.
Anyway, I agree with your points regarding the realities.  IPv6 is a 
costly endeavor, IPv4 with NATs is what people are using at all 
levels, consumers and business, simply because of cost and it allows 
people to continue to operate at all levels.
--
HLS

Martin Rex wrote:
> 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).
>
>
> -Martin
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf