--On Friday, June 10, 2011 12:10 -0400 "Worley, Dale R (Dale)"
<dworley@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> OTOH, my cable ISP provider has an "Expected IPv6 Transition
> Phases" chart, in which Phase 3 says, "Customer Premesis
> Equipment (CPE) IP addressing: IPv6 only". And they've
> started trials of IPv6 already.
Dale,
I think that is part of the (rather specific) point I was trying
to make. When one gets to the SOHO and small business markets,
there are ISPs who have gotten with the program and are making
commitments or actually deploying. Some have not, don't intend
to, and don't have a clue. A few are issuing press releases
about their commitment to IPv6, but have no actual deployment
plan to end users. In none of the cases that are moving
forward have I seen anything that can be best explained by a
desire for competitive advantage.
For several years, I went through the exercise that, every time
one particular ISP issued a press release or make a presentation
about their IPv6 efforts, I'd call their local office and say
"ok, I'd like IPv6 here. What is the schedule for your turning
service on here and how do I get an order in?" Despite all the
hype, the answers I got were a lot more similar to what Keith,
Ned, and Nathaniel have reported than they were to handing out
charts and making commitments.
YMMD... and obviously does.
I think the question for the IETF is whether it is desirable to
move 6to4 to historic at a time when it is the only path to IPv6
for some users in spite of whatever recognition there is that it
is no longer a mechanism we want to encourage people to design
into new installations or systems.
Personally, I'd rather see us publish an A/S that just says
"generally Not Recommended any more because..." than have the
debate about the surface and deep semantics of "Historic". Most
of the text for that document could be appropriated from the
current V6OPS WG draft. Much of the rest could be drawn from
Tony Hain's recent note in this thread.
But, to the extent to which the motivation for moving 6to4 to
Historic is what Tony describes as "kill-what-we-don't-like",
let me suggest that we need to realize that a good fraction of
the reason we have as little deployed and
used-routinely-in-production IPv6 as we do is not technical
issues but that the IETF and some related communities have
consistently gotten deployment scenarios, schedules, and plans
wrong... and then made promises based on those wrong guesses. I
think a little modest realism about our predictive abilities and
a willingness to understand that different situations call for
different scenarios would help a lot. It would help even more
if our documents ran a little more in the direction of
reflective and emotionally neutral scenario analysis and a
little less in the direction of "praise what you like and damn
what you don't".
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf