On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 14:48 -0400, Todd Underwood wrote:

folx,

along with several others i've been putting together a panel for ripe/nanog about ipv6. the core contention is that there is a large, unrepresented body of operators who are sceptical as to the need for IPv6, see no market demand, see no problem it solves and see no justification for the cost.

You might want to post this question to: http://lists.cluenet.de/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-ops But I guess that folks over there mostly already operate fully dualstacked networks thus won't fall in the sceptics part. The only 'sceptics' I know of are the people who: - have enough address space - don't want the hassle of learning something new - have enough clientele that can't go anywhere else - don't have nor won't get the funding to get it going The other part of the sceptics are the folks who don't like the current IPv6 multihoming situation, which is an understandable fact.

balancing that is the belief that address space will be exhausted and that we need a replacement for v4. mediating the two of those is the desire to have a scalable routing system (which many people think means separating identity and location).

That id/loc part actually sounds like a great solution to me... it in general doesn't sound like a great solution to ISP's who want to keep a hold on their customers though.

so, the panel for nanog has already been submitted. i was hoping to do one at RIPE, too, but some of the panelists can't make it and many at RIPE took umbrage at the north americanness of all of the participants on the panel.

so i come here looking for suggestions for the following:

--someone rabidly pro v6 (european or not, preferably a network operator). this would make a nice addition to the panel for nanog

I've forwarded this to somebody who will be in at least the US during the next NANOG, see the other mail. For a RIPE meeting just mail the above referenced IPv6 ops list and you should get a large number of replies. This is the easy part.

--someone cold-heartedly anti-v6 who is a european operator

Unfortunately I don't know anybody that qualifies in this category. Most European ISP's have already seen the light fortunately :) Enjoy the hunt. You could of course let the sceptics form in a US group and the pro folks in a European group and let them fight it out. Which can also be quite entertaining I guess. Btw, don't forget to announce on the list when these fights will take place and where to watch the stream for the folks who can't attend as it should be better than your average wrestling match <grin>

suggestions welcome in private mail (i don't think that the panel is of operational significance, although the lack of market demand for anything like v6 may be).

Afaik, the reasons for "Lack Of Demand for IPv6" consists of: - No _accepted_ Multihoming Solution (BGP, shim6, etc) - there is enough IPv4 address space available, at least for parties they are talking to. - chicken egg: No Content <-> No Connectivity (*) - no direct revenue and payback thus hard to sell to management aka no real business case can be made - corporate businesses don't move too much yet (though it is looking a lot like some bigger corps are finally getting of their butts) - no funding to get the transition implemented - misaligned upgrade cycles, thus hardware not supporting it - not enough manpower/resources - already overloaded with too much other _real_ work to do - router vendors which are far from ready yet (I have nice stories about most of them, especially F recently ;) - believe that it will break their network it's also a FUD thing in parts. It would be really good indeed to know _why_ certain operators choose not to deploy IPv6 yet, or if they are, when and their reasoning for delaying it. Greets, Jeroen * = not even joking, but could somebody set up a free IPv6 p0rn service; that should considerably raise the demand for IPv6 around the globe. I have some nice statistics from users from a certain asian ISP who are looking at some cosy pictures quite often, most likely using IPv6 as the content is blocked over IPv4 as The Great Firewall doesn't support the new protocol yet ;)