On 22/11/2013 06:46, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
...
>> It is doubtful whether transition to IPv6 remains a top priority given the
>> uninspiring results. There has been some related discussion within an IETF
>> context (see transition thread on this mailing list).
>
>
> This is where governments can impact change.
>
> The problem with IPv6 deployment is that there are transition costs. Until
> very recently the IETF plan for deployment was to try to make IPv6 more
> attractive than IPv4 by deliberately hobbling IPv4 features and resist
> palliative measures such as NAT. This was a complete feature.
>
> Now we have over a dozen transition proposals and no clear market choice.
Actually there has been a clear market choice among many ISPs for years:
straightforward dual stack. It works very well. We also have a plethora
of tunnelled solutions, some better than others, which apply to various
different scenarios where the provider's view is that OPEX for dual stack
is higher than OPEX for tunnels. The service to the application software
is still dual stack (in most cases).
I'm no happier than anyone else about the mess in the softwire WG, which
is finally showing some signs of getting resolved, but don't be confused
by that. We don't actually need a single market choice for the tunnels,
and we won't get one.
Just sit back, be happy, and IPv6 will continue to deploy progressively.
> And the market is not going to make a choice because the market
> stakeholders find NAT works well enough for its needs.
And when it doesn't, they will switch to IPv6.
> What I would do as a government entity is to get a group of techies to
> describe a minimum set of technical capabilities for Internet access
> points.
Please don't. The history of government mandates for IPv6 is, to say the
least, chequered. Best practices are emerging for IPv6 now, as they did
for IPv4 twenty years ago.
Brian