[v6ops] IPREF as a transitioning tool

[waldemar <[e-mail]>]

I wanted to address one comment that I did not have time to during the 
session yesterday.

There was a gentleman who questioned the wisdom of introducing another 
transition strategy. He said such a proposal would make sense 15 years 
ago, he also said many could propose new strategies but refrain from 
doing so. He ended by stating that there is no need for another 
transition strategy.

I generally agree with the line of thought. Excessive proliferation of 
methods is detrimental to the cause. I questioned myself whether to go 
with the proposal or not. In the end I decided that IPREF is so 
different and so distinct from anything currently available that it 
should be presented. I already mentioned that it is based on a different 
principle which will make it succeed where existing methods would fail. 
There are other factors, even more significant:

(a) IPREF is 100% customer premise technology. As such, its use is 
totally dependent on the customers choice. There is nothing IETF can do 
to stop them. It is similar to NAT in this respect. NAT was widely 
despised, still is, by IPv6 enthusiast but it took over the world in 
spite of attempts to  block it.

(b) Related to (a), enterprises love the ability to control the process 
themselves, without anybody dictating what they should or should not do 
with their networks. In addition, the economic profile hugely favors 
IPREF. It is simply cheaper not to do dual stacks, not to do two step 
transition, not to have to upgrade what they don't want to upgrade, not 
to have to coordinate with peers. Less cost, less risk.

(c) Related to (b) the economic profile of IPREF is hugely attractive 
to  ISPs as well. Why doing IPv4-as-a-service if it is not necessary, 
why burden pure IPv6 Internet with IPv4 services if they're not needed? 
How can IPv6 compete with IPv4 if it is required to provide extra 
functionality but which can be avoided? Less cost, less risk.

I am just an individual, an inventor, I can do only so much. There are 
different roles played by different entities. IPREF must be picked up by 
others. By vendors to build commercial gateways, by architects and 
operators to complete its specification. This project is in a very 
vulnerable stage. It can be easily dismissed. Because of (a), (b), and 
(c) above, it would be foolish to do so. You must allow that the project 
might be picked up at some point, the gateways will be built, and in the 
end the economy of the method will prevail. IPv6 cause is better served 
embracing it than fighting it.