Keith & John are hitting the crux of the issue here. The entire point of the automated tunneling technologies was to enable application development and deployment in the face of lethargic ISPs, that will refuse to move until they see a set of credible applications running in the wild. None of them will take the risk that the leap-of-faith requires without serious competitive threat, and that simply doesn't exist. I am in the 'enviable' position where both ISP options available to me are clueful and actually actively working on IPv6 deployments. That said, I am still stuck with tunneling because the one option that could get me service today can't keep their basic access network running (the other work-from-home neighbors around me struggle with it regularly for IPv4), and the one I use for service has decided to start their deployment of IPv6 in larger markets (imagine that). 6to4 continues to serve me well for all but the bone-headed places that have decided to boycott that prefix. There is no real problem with 6to4, despite the BS being propagated about failure rates. The fundamental problem is that those complaining have their heads firmly stuck in IPv4-think, and are refusing to add a second 6to4 prefix to their service. If they would simply install their own 6to4 router and be the tunnel endpoint, there would be no 3rd party in the path for either direction. The technology is simply creating an opportunity. Those complaining about it are refusing to take advantage of it because that would be a different operational practice than they do for IPv4. The herd mentality of kill-what-we-don't-like is not helping with deployment. In fact the ability to document which ISPs have customers that are trying to use IPv6 despite the edge lethargy is a very useful thing to drive deployment through blame-&-shame. Put the 6to4-to-historic effort on the shelf for at least 5 years. Then it will be time to talk. Tony > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > John C Klensin > Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 7:44 AM > To: Brian E Carpenter > Cc: IETF Discussion > Subject: Re: one data point regarding native IPv6 support > > > > --On Saturday, June 11, 2011 01:34 +1200 Brian E Carpenter > <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >... > > You're correct that some ISPs will try to get monopoly rents > > out of the IPv4 shortage, and use CGN to capture customers in > > walled gardens, but fortunately capitalism provides a solution > > to such misbehaviour: other ISPs can deploy IPv6 as a > > competitive advantage. > > Sure. Assuming that there is realistic competition, or a > realistic possibility of competition, in the relevant market. > Keith, Ned, and others have described a situation in which there > are few realistic choices of ISPs and the attitude of all of > them toward getting IPv6 deployed to endpoints runs from bad to > worse. In that marketplace situation, capitalism is as likely > to predict a "no one goes first" outcome as it is to predict > that one of the ISPs will suddenly decide that deploying IPv6 > will give them a competitive advantage... and give that > competitive advantage even after the additional training costs > for their own staffs, support costs for customers, equipment and > software, etc., are considered. > > That situation really isn't much different than it was several > years ago. If I'm in an area where competition is permitted, > I'm a large enough customer to be talking about dedicated fiber > to my premises in the multiple DS3 range or above, and I call up > my ISP (or my router vendors, or...) and say "sell me IPv6 or > I'm going to find it somewhere else", the threat is credible and > I'll probably set either them or their competitors scrambling. > If I'm in a situation that is closer to a SOHO one, in much of > the world there is no effective competition, I'm not seen as > having much leverage, and the scenario for my getting native > IPv6 is a lot more dependent on internal strategic decisions (or > wishful thinking) in those ISPs and not on competition issues > except very indirectly or at all. > > john > > > john > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf