On 24 Jun 2014, at 16:38, Phillip Hallam-Baker
<phill(_at_)hallambaker(_dot_)com> wrote:
This might be a random thought, but one of the main problems we have as an
organization is getting people to take deployment of IETF specs seriously.
Particularly when they are enhancements of existing specs that work 'well
enough' for existing users.
Having fielded yet another “IPv6 is moronic! I can explain IPv4+DHCP+NAT in
five seconds, but IPv6 is just sooooooooo complicated!” exchange, which ended
(as usual) with the admin both not deploying the protocol and accusing the IETF
of “Rolling over” when the end-user CPE makers can’t pull their fingers out, I
do wonder whether we shouldn’t be shouting ever-so-slightly louder from the
rooftops?
I do my best, honest, but I think it’s just possible that we should be trying
to make “UX” some sort of priority.
Of course we all know that IPv6 is *supposed* to work out of the box, but it
seems to me that we do not even attract *market* power, and we’re essentially
going by social response alone. People who can will continue to use kludges,
because honestly, they actually do work. And the end-user is driving that
apathy.
While going through the Windows API calls and thinking how old fashioned and
lame all those 'Win32' classes look now, a sudden thought:
Ordinary users don't understand the importance of going from IPv4 to IPv6.
But Ordinary users do understand that 32 bits is bad and old and obsolete and
rubbish and 64 bits is better.
So lets stop asking ISPs 'do you support IPv6' and instead ask 'Is your
Internet service 32 bit or 128'?
This might sound a trivial matter but I can assure you its not. Banging on
about how the wealthy Wall Street types got a bailout during Bush's fiscal
crisis got nowhere. "The wealth of the 1% or the welfare of the 99%" had real
effect.
Mmm. I like the way you think. :)
Cheers,
Sabahattin