[ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?

Hi,

the description of the working group says:
"The IPv6 Working Group is for anyone with an interest in the next
generation Internet Protocol. The activities of the WG include education
and outreach, sharing deployment experiences and discussing and fixing
operational issues."

I know we do all of this at RIPE Meetings and maybe other times as well,
but still ...

... the default network at RIPE Meetings is the dual-stack network, with
the IPv6-only (NAT64) network as a barely used extra which is "supported
on a best effort basis". With the effect that almost no-one except a few
"ipv6 zealots" uses it. This tells me that a significant part of the
RIPE community does not only consider this setup "not production ready"
but expects an amount of breakage so huge that it's not acceptable to
try it out and see what would actually break (while still offering a
dual-stack network as a fallback, of course).

... the results of the RIPE NCC survey published today lists the
scarcity of IPv4 addresses as one of the largest challenges facing the
participants in the survey. At the same time, about one quarter of
participants has no plans for deploying IPv6, with the most common
reason given as "there is no business requirement for IPv6". This tells
me that a significant part of the RIPE community does not view a
migration to IPv6 as a useful way to deal with the shortage of available
IPv4 address space.

These two examples both concern the RIPE community, a group of people
that are highly interested and knowledgeable in the field of internet
operations. Now think about what the situation might look like at your
friendly neighbourhood IT shop or network department.

I maybe wouldn't call the IPv6 WG "failed", but it clearly still has a
long way to go until we can claim "mission accomplished".

Wolfgang