In message <op.yitmccdptfhldh@rbeam.xactional.com>, "Ricky Beam" writes:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 19:17:37 -0400, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
The average consumer wants a "internet connection".
And sadly, they haven't a clue what that means. They plug the thing into the other thing, and they can click on things in their web browser. They're why we have boxes with color coded connectors and cables.
What will happen is that as CGN starts to break things for people like gamers they will start asking for IPv6, like us network geeks ask for IPv6.
Correction: after much lamenting and whining to their gaming buddies via various forums until someone boils it all down to one word "IPv6". And then were back to ape mentality... they don't know what it is, but they now know that's what they need. They have, thus, been "educated" -- to a microscopic level only a physicist can measure, but they will now demand "IPv6 (whatever that is.)"
That being said, those who know what a internet connection should be delivering should be advocating for the real deal. It is our ethical responsability to do this for our customers.
It would be nice to live in a world where that were the case. However, the world we live in is run my bean counters, and the marketing department. IPv6 is a huge project that is seen by them as an unnecessary expense.
Absolute BS. IPv6 has never needed to be a huge project for a ISP compared to everything else a ISP does. It required some research and ensuring that you bought compatible equipement and things fell due for replacement. If you failed to do the research and therefore needed to do everthing in a rush then it might seem like a huge project.
Everything works right now, right? CGN is easy; it's just one big box. 6RD is just one more box, and then it's the customers problem to use it (etc.) Companies do what makes them money without costing them money. IPv6 is the exact opposite, it costs a lot and generates nothing.
6rd is a joke the way most ISP's deploy it. One /64 per customer? What the hell are they thinking. 6rd also introduces PMTUD issues and rapid address renumbering that is necessary especially when also providing native IPv4. 6rd is nothing but a stopgap solution the same as a HE tunnel is a stopgap solution. But you can ignore that reality if you wish. A ISP that thinks 6rd is the end point when deploying IPv6 is doing their customers a disservice.
I agree, we should've turned this shit on a decade ago (or more.)
Of course, the whole mess is exactly what you get out of "designed by committee". With zero interoperability, and no viable migration paths, it's a Forklift Upgrade(tm).
Hey you do better. I've seen lots of people complain but I've yet to see anyone come up with a better solution. Talk is cheap.
People don't do Forklift Upgrades(tm). "So you want me to rip out all the token-ring gear and replace it with ethernet?" That was a hard sell, and there was interoperability and bridging technology. "So you want me to throw away by Novell IPX network and replace it with TCP/IP?" While Novell did work over IP in the later years, people hung on to their "works perfectly for our needs" IPX infrastructure for decades -- IPX WANs, even. (some still exists to this day. In fact, the massive kyocera printer here still supports IPX. And Appletalk! Holy crap, my horse isn't dead; they still don't talk to each other.)
No, we wanted you to enable IPv6 in parallel with IPv6 15+ years ago. It's not like it was that hard back then. I've not replaced a single piece of equipement to get IPv6 yet I have running IPv6 on most devices by being selective in my purchasing decisions as things needed replacing. There was no forklift upgrade. Everything was done piecemeal. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org