Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input

[Nick Buraglio <[e-mail]>]

I realize I didn't really answer your question in my prior
rambling response. Perhaps a reasonable way to get some more enterprises
involved is to simply ask. Enterprises are typically driven by result
oriented processes. If we can determine something that they need, how could
we help them realize that need? How could their donation of time and input
be measured?
Engaging some of the larger enterprises that have deployed IPv6 -
successfully or unsuccessfully - and asking what their motivation was/is
would be a worthwhile endeavor. Moreover, determining why deployments have
been unsuccessful would be extremely useful in helping to inform
the motivations and pitfalls.


nb




On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 4:23 PM Nick Buraglio <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Enterprise input is difficult. Building interest is even harder for
> several reasons, but the most prevalent reason I have seen is that there is
> a severe lack of business case for deployment of IPv6 that enterprises can
> see in short order. The key here is the timeframe. Most of even the largest
> of enterprises are completely fine with - and even strongly advocate for -
> private address space plus NAT, which many have conflated with a
> security tool rather than a translation mechanism. Many larger enterprises
> still rely on PA address space, IPv6 multihoming is significantly more
> difficult for the same reasons that NAT is easy. Many of these
> organizations do not have the expertise or the time to put IPv6 on the
> radar until it is absolutely required by a business driver. These are
> slowly coming, but they're slow. The slow rollout is adding to the
> apprehension and laissez faire (at best) and outright refusal (at worst)
> approach to consider IPv6.  De-mystifying the complex pieces are a huge
> part of moving this forward. Making things approachable, easily consumable,
> and friendly have been cornerstones to the experiences I have had
> successfully deploying IPv6. To get enterprises interested it needs to be
> worth their time in the short term and have wide and *emphatic* vendor
> support across the enterprise platforms and for the protocol to be treated
> as a first class citizen on those platforms, otherwise it is often viewed
> as change for the sake of change. They need to be able to sample it and
> model it in a way that is comfortable to them.
> I don't believe that this is really a technology problem at its core.
> Until we can make it work the same as what is believed to be "normal", it's
> going to be a slog. When a vendor is asked if product X works without
> legacy IP (or even supports IPv6) 95% need to say "well, yes, of course it
> does" - or better yet, we should not need to ask. We don't need to ask if
> things support IPv4, it's implied. The industry needs to be closer to that
> mark.
> Do I know how to get there? Not really. At this point I just yell as loud
> as I can about IPv6 support everywhere I go and try to educate people the
> best I can.
>
> nb
>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 3:33 PM Fred Baker <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> I have thought some about the discussion we had in the V6ops meeting
>> about increasing operational input. Several suggestions were made: add a
>> separate meeting, segregate parts of the meeting, attend the IEPG, use an
>> interim, and so on. One thought that I had was to schedule a meeting at
>> RIPE in May.
>>
>> None of these address what seems to me to be a core problem: ISPs are
>> deploying, but enterprise isn’t. How do we get enterprise on board?
>>
>> Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
>