Re: Usage of services without IPv6 Support

[Fernando Frediani <[e-mail]>]

On 22/04/2020 12:14, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>
> To be clear, I agree that IPv6 is in some sense "special"; I'm just 
> asking
> that you include that step of reasoning when you are arguing for us to
> treat it as special.

There is nothing special about IPv6. It is the Internet Protocol and 
IPv4 is already legacy. And there are serious issues related to IPv4 
exhaustion that perhaps many people are not yet aware.

It should already be deployed in most places and services and it's not 
because of many reasons like of people unwilling to do whatever 
necessary and treating it as something less important or even cosmetic.
In fact I get surprise often the amount of effort people put trying to 
find ways to not have to do it than to find out how to do.

I do my bit when I am the one who decides: I always prefer to pay for 
tools and SaaS that have IPv6 support, I request it from potential 
suppliers and in RFPs, Have turned down business already because of lack 
of IPv6, I make content I host available in IPv6 and so on. Yes, some of 
these tasks require more time to do done and that's one of the ways I 
get to contribute to it and show example myself.
What I am proposing is to get out of the comfort zone and start to make 
the same requirements mandatory in order to show example, so other 
people can feel they can do the same. Does anyone believe IETF should 
not give example in this sense ?

Regards
Fernando