Subject: Deployment vs the IPv6 community's ambivalence towards large providers

From: Sean Doran <[email-masked]>
Date: 17 Aug 2000 21:46:41 +0200

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Michael Richardson observed:

>  a) my service provider isn't IPv6 ready. I am doubtful that any of them
>        will be for a long time as far as I can tell. 

Yes, a very long time, until at least the ambivalence in
the IPv6 community towards established providers is
resolved, and some large providers' and _many_ small
providers' concerns are dealt with.

Consider the rather nasty attitude in response to my
technical deployment and utilization-scenario related
questions raised here in the past 6 hours:

        -- likened to SPAM [Narten]
        -- accused of trolling [Narten]
        -- told to go away [Narten]
        -- accused of not knowing the history of CIDR [Senie]

I could go on with other recent examples too, but you get the idea.

On the other hand, Itojun, like many others in the IPv6
community, answered politely with useful information, and
seem to be thinking about ways in which IPv6 could
actually be used in practice, even with non-uniform
support for native IPv6 by ISPs.

I assert that one of the critical stumbling blocks to
acceptance of IPv6 by *ANY* large provider is the open
hostility of many of the "leaders" of the IPNG effort
towards those of us in the trenches.

Indeed, the whole ROAD process, and everything since has
to me turned its back on people actually OPERATING the
Internet as experienced resources who could help improve IPv6.

Perhaps if the IPNG leadership or at least their attitudes
were changed, some useful engagement may happen.

Otherwise, Metzger's deployment scenario below is probably
the only realistic one, because no business in its right
mind would want to support a collection of people whose
leaders openly accuse them of everything short of baby-killing.

        Sean.
- - --
Sean Doran <[email-masked]>  (Working at a large ISP, incidentally)

- - --
Perry Metzger in <[email-masked]> on 03 Dec 1999 19:42:10 -0500:

> We'll tunnel around you. You're irrelevant to deployment, anyway. 
> [..] I gave up believing that providers would be paying close attention to
> the needs of customers about eight years ago [..] I'm certainly not going to hold
> my breath waiting for you guys to help deploying v6 now.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 17:15:48 -0500

Sean,

...
> towards those of us in the trenches.

I think that is an unwarranted generalisation, I really do.
Let's say that we all need to think carefully about how we
phrase our postings, to avoid them being misinterpreted.
I would have to get too deep into personalities if I said any more.

> Internet as experienced resources who could help improve IPv6.

Well I seem to remember plenty of operational people in CIDRD,
which was also part of the ROAD follow-up. But there has indeed
been a lack of operational people active in the IPv6 WGs.

The IPv6-related WGs are as open as every other IETF WG, so if there
has been limited participation by large providers that is their choice. 
But that has consequences, such as 
    a) large provider concerns have not been voiced as much as  
       desirable in the WGs;
and b) in some cases large providers appear to have incomplete 
       or out of date ideas about how IPv6 is actually specified
       and implemented.

       [example: "when one connects to an IPv6 provider,
        one's border router automatically acquires a range of
        addresses from that provider" is untrue; it isn't automatic.
        I wish it was.]

Now I don't blame the large providers particularly for this; they
have a network to run. But in certain areas, such as multihoming, we
badly need provider input - especially now.

I must add one thing. Provider input has to be part of the design
dialogue. It's no good if providers show up, say "you must do X",
and then don't stay for the discussion of whether X works in the
total picture. Life is still a compromise.

   Brian

---

From: "Matt Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 17:38:32 -0500

Sean, you knowingly and deliberately wasted people's time all week
with your nonsensical suggestions (as evidenced by your first
message's label "Fuel for the B Ark") ... and you now want us to
believe that you're upset by being told that you're wasting our time?

There are people who play the "troll" game a lot better.  They
practice it in various newsgroups.  Occasionally they've tried to
bring it to the IETF list, to nobody's satisfaction.  Maybe you'd
enjoy playing in their sandbox.  Go, make us proud.

---

From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 23:03:03 -0400

I hope I will be forgiven for adding another message to this 
long thread.

1. we have to discuss the practical problems of deploying IPv6 and especially
a bunch of corner cases or it won't work.

2. there are still a lot of "holes" in my opinion that need filling in any
credible deployment scenario - and we'll learn the most from trying to get
serious, operational IPv6 networks up and running. 

3. the ietf general list is probably the wrong place for further extended
discusssion

vint (I'm an advocate of trying to get IPv6 into operational condition)
=================================================================
WorldCom
22001 Loudoun County Parkway
Building F2, Room 4115, ATTN: Vint Cerf
Ashburn, VA 20147
Telephone (703) 886-1690
FAX (703) 886-0047

"INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE!" 
INET 2001: Internet Global Summit 
5-8 June 2001 
Sweden International Fairs 
Stockholm, Sweden 
http://www.isoc.org/inet2001

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 23:19:05 -0400

> 3. the ietf general list is probably the wrong place for further extended

Could we have an ICMP Redirect please? ;)
-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Operating Systems Analyst
				Virginia Tech

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 09:45:02 +0859 ()

Vint;

> serious, operational IPv6 networks up and running. 

That's an easier half of the problem.

When I visited a major router vendor in last June and asked about
IPv6 support, the answer was that it will be supported IPv6 at the
end of next year, because it involves a lot of software work,
even though their hardware is ready.

They, then, asked me which of the complex feaures of IPv6, such as
tunneling or NAT-like capability, should be supported.

> 3. the ietf general list is probably the wrong place for further extended

Maybe. But it means that entire IETF is the wrong place. Here is a
better place than IPNG WG committee list, where removal of features
can not be accepted.

							Masataka Ohta