Re: [dhcwg] We can change the world in a 1000 ways (IPv4 over IPv6)

[Lee Howard <[e-mail]>]

On 11/12/13 10:12 AM, "Michael Richardson" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
>    >> It would be nice to convene a summit of operators (at RIPE or
>NANOG)
>    >>and describe the various mechanisms and rather than ask them which
>one
>    >>they like, 
>    >> ask them which one they would *NEVER* consider.  That might reduce
>the
>    >> field by half...

I understand ETSI has developed a document that chose 17 of the top 27
transition mechanisms to describe. I doubt the audience would sit still
for the 8 hours of description, and retain enough information to make
informed decisions.


>
>b) I'm more interested in reasons operators who are not deploying
>anything,
>   have for not wanting to.

Not deploying IPv6, or not deploying transition technologies?
Operators who are not deploying either are not convinced that there's an
urgent enough problem for them.  I think they're wrong, since I think it
will take them two years to deploy, and they have less than two years
before they'll regret not having IPv6.

>
>I'll bet if we had a single IPv4 over IPv6 solution which had a clear
>operating cost savings over Dual-Stack, and also over IPv4-only+CGN, that
>we'd be at universal deployment of IPv6 already.

I doubt it.  Operators don't save money until they can return to single
stack.  Without content on IPv6, running IPv4 over IPv6 just adds
complexity, adds gear in the core, and makes your traditional service
dependent on the new protocol.  With content on IPv6, you don't need the
transition mechanism.
Of course, content doesn't want to do IPv6 until the ISPs provide
eyeballs.  I think I've had this conversation before.


>
>I don't really understand why we have so many mechanisms... Perhaps we
>could
>have an IAB plenary presentation on it... or maybe someone could do an
>ISOC
>video like Kathleen did for MILE.

Because getting your name on an RFC is a career-enhancing move.

Lee