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

Hi,

I think it boils down to

a) deploy IPv6 where it makes sense for you to do so.

b) remove IPv4 where it makes sense for you to do so.

What “makes sense” for different people, organisations, and communities will differ.  Stratgies at say Facebook and TalkTalk differ wildly.

Tim


On 4 Oct 2019, at 07:55, Carlos Friaças via ipv6-wg <ipv6-wg at ripe.net<mailto:ipv6-wg at ripe.net>> wrote:


Hi WG,

We have to acknowledge "IPv6 zealots" are real.
Disclaimer: i think i was part of that group some years ago.
I guess i understood i wasn't in that group anymore when i tried to help fix IPv4 distribution policies, while hearing some others say:

 "Don't touch that, let it burn fast!
  IPv4 burning fast will be good for v6".

I then realized usability and the end-users are what needs to be protected, not IP version X or IP version Z just by the sake of technology coolness.

We also have to acknowledge "IPv4 zealots" are real. I don't think i'm going to enter that group anytime soon, though.

IMHO, Mr.Py has a point about monopolies & torpedoes.
But Mr.Rey's reference about IPv6 deployment rates also makes a good point!

I believe markets change. In some countries there is more regulation than others. And people in key positions also change companies, which sometimes impact what their old and new companies actually do/decide.

I also don't think the WG has failed.
3 years ago i went to a RIPE meeting (in Madrid) with a (a less technical) colleague. On Thursday he told me that _ONE_ application didn't work/connect. That application was well-know to be IPv4-only and disliking translation mechanisms, so after 5 minutes of debugging the conclusion was easy: he had been connected to the IPv6-only meeting network since Monday and everything worked seamlessly.

Some years ago i also did a local test by removing the IPv4 address from my laptop to see if i could bear with a full day of work without it. I couldn't. After two hours i placed it back, but at the time i already had a list of "things to fix", with stuff which was only accessible by IPv4. If you have the time, i recommend you to do it. It's also a way of advancing IPv6 deployment, if you have the time/patience.

Regards,
Carlos




On Fri, 4 Oct 2019, Enno Rey wrote:

Michel,

On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 03:23:55AM +0000, Michel Py wrote:
Wolfgang Zenker wrote :
... 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.

The participants in the RIPE NCC survey are not representative of the market.
Here in the USA we have

... an IPv6 deployment rate of > 50%, see https://twitter.com/Enno_Insinuator/status/1179974955502428161.

We are in the end of 2019, I live and work in California, and my ISP does not offer IPv6.

That is, in all seriousness, regrettable. I live and work in California, too, not far away from Sacramento.
My ISP brings IPv6 to my home, I have it on my phones and I hear that the companies of people I meet over lunch serve terabytes of data over IPv6 every single day. It seems California is a quite diverse place, in many regards...

Your ideas are technically flawed, that being said. And you are not taking it to the right place.
Try the IETF.

that was funny. I mean both sentences are heavily flawed but at least the second gave me a good laugh.

cheers

Enno




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20191004/8f333f22/attachment.html>