Usage of services without IPv6 Support

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

 



Hello all

I want to call attention to a open wound. Some people may feel uncomfortable about the content of this email but I can assure I come with good intentions.

Recently I got to know that a 6man meeting ironically was conducted via Webex Videoconferencing tool which does not have IPv6 support. Other tools used by IETF like GitHub also don't have and in this case is even worst because there are several alternatives with IPv6 support as GitLab, Bitbucket or even a self-hosted option.

I want to talk about some points like value and productivity.
How can IETF that standardizes IPv6 can accept keep using any SaaS products that don't yet have IPv6 support ? How is it not prepared to eat its own dog food ? Even if the service is given for free it should be refused as in my view IETF should always give the example worldwide and say: "We thank your offer, but it is more important to us give the example about our fundamental building blocks." Some other questions that are worth put are: "Does it really have to be *that* specific tool that doesn't have IPv6 support, or could we live without this and that specific feature and at the end of the day doing that same work we intended to ?"

I feel sometimes people are too stick to certain tools that are not prepared to let them go, even above values. Some may have a endless to-do list and just want to get things out of their way without much consideration to these points. Both in my view are bad.

I do understand that sometimes it is difficult to find a proper tool that will do the job, but unless we are talking about something rare or unique and in that case *really* there is no other choice, I believe more effort should to be put into using tools that support IPv6. Perhaps even an in-house hosted solution should be considered. They may not have all the features but may be able to do the job until some SaaS can feel incentivized to get proper IPv6 support and differentiate themselves. If we were talking about a private company perhaps this could be more loose, but we are talking about IETF. Values should always prevail and give the example about IPv6 usage should always be among the list of Priorities number 0.

Over the years I see companies giving all sort of excuses about not having IPv6 on their products. "This plugin"," that component that doesn't have it", "Nobody asked for yet" (this is the worst), "My provider which uses component XPTO has promised me that for next year", etc. Very little are dispose to change suppliers to try get things working and helping give the example. I even guess that sometimes this may be a reliever to some people so they always have an excuse on the pocket. Believe it or not but we are in 2020 and there are new products coming out to production without proper IPv6 support, including and mainly SaaS products. How come this can be considered a normal thing at current times ?

Sometimes I hear from people: "Well, it has passed 20 years and we still have trouble with IPv6 deployments". Of course we do, people a unwilling to change even small bits of their way of doing things, get out of their comfort zones and start to require IPv6 as mandatory to providers and SaaS services. And even when IETF doesn't give the example how are we suppose to ask people to do the right thing about it and for the survival of the Internet for the next decades ?

Shall we do the right thing and put values above other priorities going forward ?

Best regards
Fernando




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

  Powered by Linux