[ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

>  According to the mailing list archive, "[t]he 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".
> So, Jens shared his IPv6 deployment experiences ("isn't happening"),
> maybe there's something the IPv6 WG can do to enforce IPv6 deployment?
> BTW, at least in terms of availability v6 is the current, v4 the
> legacy Internet Protocol, maybe that wording should be updated?
> 


My experience: I was consulting with a small ISP on the opportunity to 
deploy dual stack IPv6 to the end-users. IPv6 is already functional with 
the peers.

RIPE published its recommendations: 
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-690. Basically, delegate a 
/48 for each customer and give the ONT an IP from a different pool.

Which comes with some routing questions: how do you map the /48 with the 
CPE?
Is there some kind of OSPF-like protocol that allows the ONT to 
advertise the delegated class?
Do you add all possible routes in the router at the beginning, but then 
end up with 100k routes in an area with 5k customers?
Do you programmatically add the routes when activating a client? Is 
there a standard for that?

So, at this year's MENOG, I asked the person next to the IPv6 banner 
whom I could talk to. She said she will forward all my questions to 
their IPv6 expert.
Sure enough, I got a response from the IPv6 expert: a few very polite 
paragraphs that boiled down to: "Huh?!".
And a link to this list, which for the past 8 months was comatose.

The result: I asked my customer if he has enough IPv4 addresses for the 
next 3 years. He said yes, so my recommendation was: wait for a couple 
of years.

Takeaway: If we want more IPv6 at the end-user level, we need standards 
to do that, not just some recommendations.

Best regards,
Dan Craciun