> On Aug 27, 2019, at 22:07 , Fernando Frediani <fhfredi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I may be wrong but it looks like that for some people at some point the only
> thing that matters is the sensation someone may be trying to tell them how to
> do things than if IPv6 should be deployed or not.
> Right, how long more will we be in this back and forth of "I know I have to
> deploy IPv6 but I will do on my own time" ? How long more we will hear things
> like "there is no other way out of transfer market" and "it is natural thing
> to buy more IPv4 to be in business" and then right after "Don't tell me I
> have to deploy IPv6".
>
> There have been times in the past when deploying IPv6 had challenges,
> concerns or limitations, but now a days let's be honest, there are probably
> none.
>
In fairness, this is not entirely true. The following challenges still remain
in some situations:
+ Providers with a heavy reliance on MPLS for traffic engineering have no
good path to managing IPv6 traffic engineering with their existing tools.
+ There are still a significant number of providers that are not offering
IPv6 to their customers
- There are workarounds for this, but they come with significant
tradeoffs and in some cases real costs.
+ Human Factors
- Perception that NAT==Security
- Limited familiarly with IPv6
- Fear of the unknown
- Other priorities
- Perceived lack of a business case
- Engineers not well able to articulate the business case to the
C-Suite
- Entrenched software base that is not yet ported, especially
custom internal applications and large legacy systems
I’m not saying that these issues are insurmountable, and I’m not saying we
don’t need to deploy IPv6. Indeed, I’ve been beating the IPv6 drum pretty hard
for many years now. However, statements like “there are probably no remaining
challenges” do not reflect reality and reduce the credibility of your other
statements in this regard.
> We are in 2019, nearly 2020 and it seems there are still a significant amount
> of people that wishes to keep supporting the transfer market rather than do
> the obvious that we all know will make the Internet ecosystem to keep
> evolving, perhaps with less conflicts.
> And what Albert is proposing to discuss is fair and very much reasonable,
> nothing out of order: simply the organization to show it is doing its job (or
> is there anyone the believes IPv6 is still just accessory and can wait
> another 20 years ?) in order that is can use the transfer mechanism of IPv4.
> He didn't suggest anything different than that.
>
There’s lots of monetary interest in the transfer market, and where there’s a
perception of money to be made, voices and advocacy will follow. This is an
unfortunate side-effect of capitalism and market economies.
I never said Albert was out of line, but I do not think Albert’s proposal will
yield the desired results, nor do I think it is good registry policy. (See my
previous comments on the proposal).
Owen
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
