[members-discuss] About IPv6 tunnels and other incentives (was: Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model)

On 22.9.2016 v 23:07 Carlos Friacas wrote:
> Tunnels? seriously? no, please...
> 
> End-users shouldn't care about which IP version they are using.

+1

Over-the-top tunnels are actually killing IPv6 experience for everyone
(excess RTT, MTU, geolocation and speed issues, etc.)

Plus, to quote SixXS:
https://www.sixxs.net/news/2015/#callyourispforipv6-1201
> Unfortunately it seems a large number of ISPs think that our service
is a free pass for them to not deploy IPv6, as they direct their
(paying) customers who want IPv6 to our service.

Maybe a better idea would be to create a fund for financial support of
IPv6 deployments of providers, especially the big ones. Because most of
them have no real technical problems, they just deliberately postpone
the IPv6 adoption unless inevitable. The main idea is the later they
deploy it, the less money it would cost. They don't have any actual need
to deploy it, unless, say, YouTube stops playing HD videos to IPv4
clients. (That would be cool, actually.)

I'm fully aware that any such support will be unfair to all those that
already used their own money to deploy IPv6. But on the other hand,
deploying IPv6 at big providers is in the interest of the RIPE community
as a whole.


Best Regards,
Ondřej Caletka
CESNET



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5600 bytes
Desc: Elektronicky podpis S/MIME
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20160923/5667579b/attachment.p7s>