----- Original Message ----- From: "Nathaniel Borenstein" <nsb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "Keith Moore" <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: "John Levine" <johnl@xxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 8:49 PM > Just for the record: > > -- I don't believe that my single experience with first line tech support at BT says much about BT's broader role, or its relative sophistication and service quality as an ISP. For all I know it's the best ISP in the world, and has a lone bozo at tech support to qualify for a "jobs for bozos" tax credit. I was simply relating an experience that I found rather extreme. In a similar but different vein, I asked BT marketing whether or not they supported FTP (as in File Transfer Program). I got escalated to Third line support before I came across anyone who understood the question. For me, the underlying point is that for the vast mass of Internet users and Internet traffic, what we talk about in the IETF is mostly an irrelevance; the ISPs (and content providers) are responding to the reality of the market. Coming back to the original issue (should this I-D go forward?) I note that an individual (and we are all of course participating as individuals), who co-incidentally has google in his credentials, states that the failings of 6to4 are causing him big support problems. For me, that is a powerful reason why this I-D should advance, ideally before 8th June (sigh), regardless of whether or not anyone can spell 1Pv6. Tom Petch > > -- I do believe that a world in which any tech support person at any major ISP doesn't know how to spell IP -- whether he's telling you to turn off IPv6 or not -- is a world in which it is very challenging to expect positive outcomes in the major technical transition we are trying to effect. > > -- I don't believe that I know what to do about it. I'm almost sorry I mentioned it -- we still have a long way to go before we need to start worrying about Grandma configuring IPv6 at home. -- Nathaniel > > > On Jun 11, 2011, at 9:28 PM, Keith Moore wrote: > > > > > On Jun 11, 2011, at 4:54 PM, John Levine wrote: > > > >>> If we want IPv6 to be available to the average user, I think it's > >>> fair to assume that the average user won't get past the cluelessness. > >> > >> The average user is never going to call up and ask "can I get IPv6 as > >> part of my bundle along with the Home Shopping Network" so the first > >> level cluelessness doesn't matter. > >> > >> It's going to be available to the average user when the average cable > >> or DSL modem autoconfigures itself to offer IPv6, and SLAAC and DHCPv6 > >> work well enough on average consumer PCs and other wifi devices that > >> they set themselves up without any manual intervention. You know, > >> like they do with IPv4. > >> > >> I realize all these pieces work in theory, and often in practice if > >> you know what button to tweak. But Grandma is unlikely to tweak any > >> network buttons at all. > > > > agree. So when we're trying to evaluate whether IPv6 is widely available, it's not sufficient for it to be widely available to clueful users who can badger their way past first tier support. It has to be available to Grandma. > > > > Keith > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf