Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input

[Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>]

Private address space, NAT and web proxy really eliminates the business
justification for enterprises to go through all the effort for all the
training and learning curve to migrate to IPv6.

How do you justify if everything works fine and if it’s not broken why fix
it mantra.  That goes for even companies in the IT business.

For business that ever need access to v6 internet content it’s easy to
setup a 4to6 web proxy and can still keep the corporate intranet IPv4.
Even when the all web content is 100% IPv6 enterprises can still utilize
their 4to6 proxy and stay indefinitely IPv4.

That gap is very difficult to close and I guess really the only way is when
router and switch vendors stop supporting IPv4 the time will finally come
for enterprises to finally migrate to IPv6.

I think for numbers counting for IPV6 penetration I think it makes sense to
exclude enterprises from the numbers as it’s an unknown.  I don’t think
it’s counted anyway.  The main concern should be web content penetration
with IPV6 and getting that to ramp up to the eventual 100% of all web
content being on IPv6.

Enterprises need real business drivers and justification to migrate to IPv6
or its never going to happen unless it impacts their bottom line.

For corporations that do business with the government in the US and maybe
other countries have a mandate that the corporations must have IPv6
deployed and use IPv6.

Another business justification is M&A activity for large enterprises and
complex NAT solutions and elimination of NAT as a business justification to
migrate to IPv6.



Kind Regards

Gyan



On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 9:57 PM Chongfeng Xie <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> I think the problem is that there is a gap between enterprises and what
> IETF is doing, generally, enterprise needs a solution which may consist of
> multiple technologies, to update their network or system,  but IETF
> produces many relatively scattered technologies in the form of standards or
> informational documents.  These standards may be systematically organized
> in IETF,  but they are not equal to solutions for enterprise, sometimes
> they touch a specific requirement of enterprise, but in most cases they
> don’t. In order to attract the participation of enterprises, it is better
> to arrange the technologies from the perspective and tell the enterprises
> what advantages IPv6 can bring to them and how to upgrade their network
> with IPv6. If they feel the output of IETF is close to their network,
> information system or production, they will have interest to join.
>
> Best regards
> Chongfeng
>
>
>
>
> 2022年3月22日 上午4:33，Fred Baker <[e-mail]> 写道：
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email [e-mail] <[e-mail]>*



*M 301 502-1347*