Re: Last Call: <draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-14.txt>

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



+1. One point I would like to make regarding not being encourage to move to IPv6, was increased when the RIRs established the new IPv4 request "prove your need" policies. It immediately strengthen the notion that we must keep our existing IPv4 Class C network because if we let it go, we might not be able to get it back. If this policy was in place, when we first migrated to the net in the 90s', I could easily see a problem of being denied or hassled enough to show why our then new business plan should be enough.

IOW, the RIR policies only strengthen existing companies to be very careful about migrating to IPv6, which in itself is inherently complex and still long time. IPv4 is still required for reachability during any migration period which seems to me will be a very very long time.

Of course, a HDTV industry lobby can force federal legislation to force the migration and new equipment to be IPv6 ready. But TVs is a consumer market mostly. With IP, its commercial interest as well, and there will be resistance if there is a major cost involved to make the change - or at least some federal subsidy will be demanded if its going to be forced.

Ma Bell did it right when they changed from 7 digit local calls to requiring the 10 digits today for new local area codes. And this was before customers were legally allowed to "own" their phone numbers for life, make it transferable. I'm sure the ideal forward thinker at Ma Bell would of said, "If we are changing it number to 10, why not get ready and make it 16 or 20?" I think that would be been harder to do to make that change. 10 was good because it was already part of the people's mindset to make the non-local call. Not the same analogy of course, its possible to add more digits to reach any end-phone. Not possible with IPv4 unless a port is used which is the only possible extension to it.

Anyway, I agree with your points regarding the realities. IPv6 is a costly endeavor, IPv4 with NATs is what people are using at all levels, consumers and business, simply because of cost and it allows people to continue to operate at all levels.

--
HLS

Martin Rex wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2012-02-14 05:51, Noel Chiappa wrote:
    > From: Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@xxxxxxxxx>

    >> Are you volunteering to buy everyone on earth a new CPE? If not, who
    >> do you suggest will?

    > I suggest the ISPs, they are charging for the service, right?

Lots of CPE is actually owned by the customers, not the ISPs. E.g. in our
house, both our cable modem and the router attached to it are ours.
Sure, that's very common, but these devices are consumer electronics and
will get gradually replaced by IPv6-supporting boxes as time goes on.
(That is not hand-waving, the generation of boxes with IPv6 support is
starting to appear.) Nobody, I think, is denying that there will be a long
period of coexistence as a result.

That is a separate question from this draft, which gives ISPs space for
*growing* their IPv4 customer base. I think that is what upsets people.


The problem of ISP not newly shipping CPE that is not IPv6 capable
needs to be addressed by regulatory power (legistation), rather than
by ignorance of the part of the IETF.


ISPs *growing* their IPv4 customer base is a natural side effect
whenever ISPs allow customers to use equipment that they already
have (and might have been using with a different ISP before).


The vast majority of customers does not know or care about not having IPv6,
because there is _very_ few equipment that is vitally dependent on IPv6,
vs. huge amounts of equiment that requires IPv4.  If I had a CPE that
supported IPv6 (mine is from early 2006 an IPv4-only), my concern would
be how to reliably switch IPv6 off, because of the unsolved security and
privacy problems that IPv6 brings along.


It was the IETFs very own decision to build IPv6 in a fashion that it is
not transparently backwards compatible with IPv4.  If the is anyone to
blame for the current situation, than it is the IETF, not the consumers
or the ISPs (except for those folks at ISPs who participated in the
development of IPv6).


-Martin
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]