Re: one data point regarding native IPv6 support

Unless you are elevated to higher level networking people who are 
normally not part of the support process, what 1st/2nd support feeds 
end-users should be taken very lightly.

This is all very simple - economics.  Its not just about end-users, 
but major operations who are IPv4 dependent and as scary it may sound, 
its going probably going to take some major conjones, i.e. arm 
twisting and an act by congress similar to HDTV to force "everyone" to 
switch by so and so date, which is the only way the IPS (Telecos) will 
break business contracts with their business tiers.  Its more 
complicated than people having legacy TVs and wires to it.  We are 
talking major operations for millions of companies, small to large, 
who simply can't "afford" to close the door on IPv4.

I personally understand the draft's attempt to begin "closing" the 
mentality of sticking with IPv4.  As long as there a fallback, the 
urgency to move towards IPv6 is minimized.   At some point, some hard 
decisions will need to be made. Which takes be back to the HDTV 
analogy - only a government mandate made that happen.   But its not 
the same because its not just a relative few networks or broadband 
providers, but there are many software vendors, free, commercial or 
otherwise that need to change their software across the board; SMTP, 
FTP, NNTP, IMAP, POP3 etc.

The bottom line: unless I am force to support IPv6, stack or no stack, 
the investment required isn't going to happen soon.

-- 
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com

Keith Moore wrote:
> I just called my ISP to ask about availability of IPv6 at my home.
> 
> Me:  "I'm a current customer, and I'm just calling to ask if you support Internet Protocol Version 6."
> 
> First person: "Yes, we do support Internet.  We support DSL at 3 megabits and 6 megabits."
> 
> Me: "I understand that, but I'm asking about Internet Protocol version 6, IPv6.  The Internet has been using IP version 4 since the early 1980s, but that's running out.  IPv6 is the new version."
> 
> First person: "Let me transfer you to support."
> 
> Second person: "Hi, this is support.  How may I help you?"
> 
> Me: "I'm a current customer, and I'm just calling to ask if you support Internet Protocol Version 6."
> 
> Second person: "IP version what?"
> 
> Me: "Internet protocol version 6".
> 
> Second person: "I have no idea.  Let me transfer you to someone else."
> 
> (places me on hold for 15 minutes)
> 
> Second person: "I'm sorry for the wait time.  I've been trying to find the answer to your question, but nobody here seems to know anything about it.  We're trying to get in touch with people who run the network to ask them.   Can I get your number and call you back?"
> 
> Granted, this is just one ISP.  The other ISP that offers service in my area put me on hold for an hour and a half *before anyone ever talked to me* when I tried to get a quote from them, so I concluded that they wouldn't be a good choice.  And these guys have been good about support in general.  They seem to know their stuff, which is more than I can say for some ISPs I've dealt with in the past.
> 
> I live in a well-settled urban area, three miles from the center of the city (and sadly, four miles from my CO, which means my DSL circuit gets around 380kbits/sec).  It's not a backwater, there's plenty of lit fiber running through town.  But when the support people for a fairly well-established telco haven't even heard of IPv6, it's hard to believe that it's going to be available anytime soon.
> 
> Meanwhile, 6to4 continues to work just fine for me.
> 
> So please explain again why it isn't premature to discourage a valuable transition mechanism?
> 
> Keith
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
> 