(alternate solution: rename IPv6 to something media-friendlyish and request ISPs to enable support for it, advertising that most of their hardware "*already supports it*")
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 2:58 PM Cryptographrix <cryptograph...@gmail.com> wrote: > Just to clarify - there's no transition involved - IPv4 to IPv6 is like > going from the VINES protocol to IPv6: IPv6 may as well have been called > "PROTOCOL 493" - it bares very little relation to the original protocol > that brought us the internet as-it-is-today. > > The deployment of IPv4 had nothing to do with other protocols and neither > does IPv6 - EXCEPT for the fact that the use of the only > (largely-available) "transition" method (SixXS and HE.net tunnels) is now > coming face to face with media DRM, as media is taking over the internet. > > Sooo....WTF batman? > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 2:28 PM Ricky Beam <jfb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 23:57:08 -0400, Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> wrote: >> >> >>> zero interoperability, and no viable migration paths, it's a Forklift >> >>> Upgrade(tm). >> >> >> >> You say that with such confidence! Doesn't make it true. >> > >> > https://archive.psg.com/120206.nanog-v4-life-extension.pdf >> > >> > randy, who works for the first isp to deploy ipv6 to customers >> >> Also, the Randy who closed the ngtrans working group "declar[ing] victory" >> yet having produced nothing. Dual stack is not a transition plan, and >> never has been. It's a key factor in why we have such a fractured adoption >> today. >> >> If you've been completely ignoring IPv6 for 20 years, then it is indeed a >> steep learning curve[*]. If you haven't been upgrading equipment, shame on >> you! Otherwise, you've ended up with "IPv6 Capable(TM)" completely by >> accident, but you still have to deploy IPv6. On the scale of a large >> service provider (or enterprise, for that matter), that's not a trivial >> process. While *I* could upgrade the tiny island of the multi-national >> corp I work for [10 people, 1 (linux) router, 36 public facing networks] >> overnight via a plan drawn on the back of cocktail napkin over a long >> lunch, doing that over the entire global network is not going to happen >> overnight; the other offices have much more involved infrastructure. >> >> I'd like to hear from the Comcast's, TWC's, and Uverse's just how many >> man-hours were involved in the planning, testing, training, deployment, >> and troubleshooting of their IPv6 "transition". (I have a ppt of the >> Uverse 6rd plan. I cannot imagine that mere document was produced in lass >> than a day, not counting the data behind all those slides.) >> >> [*] As I joked with a business partner recently as he had to learn "all >> this crap about IPv6" for his CCIE recert, "you're a DoD contractor. >> They've had an 'IPv6 Mandate' for decades. I still have the memo." That >> mandate is for "IPv6 Capable"; they don't have any actual v6 anywhere. >> >