Re: Usage of services without IPv6 Support

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

 



Hi Fernando, all,

Fully agree with you.

I must say that Webex was an emergency solution for the Covid-19 situation for an on-line meeting instead of the Vancouver one (our usual tool for that is Meetecho, but probably it was not obvious if it can support so many participants, and not designed for not having a "local" venue).

However, there is NO excuse for GitHub, and we, as a community, especially our leadership, shall be ashamed of using it, whilst simply a self-hosted solution could change that aspect.

(I heard several times that GitHub is working on the IPv6 support, but it has been long time since that ...)

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 18/4/20 5:11, "ietf en nombre de Fernando Frediani" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx en nombre de fhfrediani@xxxxxxxxx> escribió:

    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




**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.







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

  Powered by Linux