ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: We can change the world in a 1000 ways (IPv4 over IPv6)

2013-11-12 12:14:06

Ted Lemon <Ted(_dot_)Lemon(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com> wrote:
    >> It would be nice to convene a summit of operators (at RIPE or NANOG)
    >>and describe the various mechanisms and rather than ask them which one
    >>they like, 
    >> ask them which one they would *NEVER* consider.  That might reduce the
    >> field by half...

    > I don't think that's practical—they might all vote for a protocol that
    > they wind up not wanting to deploy.   The models that are under

That's why I wouldn't ask them to pick a winner, but rather to pick the loser.

    > consideration actually have running code and some operational
    > experience behind them.   So asking operators to decide based on a
    > feature list or something of that sort is not a good idea.   What we
    > really want is for operators who have realistic intentions of deploying
    > this stuff to weigh in.   And they are doing so, in the working group,
    > so we don't really need to go to RIPE or NANOG to get this feedback. 

a) I'm not convinced the operators we have are very representative of the
   whole.  (But those that show up at a NOG might not be either. sadly)

b) I'm more interested in reasons operators who are not deploying anything,
   have for not wanting to.

I'll bet if we had a single IPv4 over IPv6 solution which had a clear
operating cost savings over Dual-Stack, and also over IPv4-only+CGN, that
we'd be at universal deployment of IPv6 already.

I don't really understand why we have so many mechanisms... Perhaps we could
have an IAB plenary presentation on it... or maybe someone could do an ISOC
video like Kathleen did for MILE.

-- 
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>, Sandelman Software Works 


Attachment: pgpeoaHP3u0hB.pgp
Description: PGP signature