Subject: ipv6 on the ietf network

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 13:27:56 -0500

Hi,
	Itojun and us have been providing IPv6 connectivity since Chicago IETF to 
the ietf network during ietf events.  But, this was always aside, having no 
or very minimal support from the host. This situation was acceptable two 
years ago. I don't think it is still acceptable.
	If you believe in IPv6 and are using it daily as many of us do, we need 
REAL commitment from the IETF organisation: IPv6 connectivity on the ietf 
network should be on the same support level and same commitment from the 
host and secretariat.
	And, if, for the ietf own use (ietf events network), ipv6 is second class 
compared to IPv4, how could we clearly convince outsiders about the 
benefits of IPv6?
	This message is asking for support from you, specially the ones that have 
direct seats on the iesg/iab or have influence on the ietf organisation to 
get IPv6 being not an "accident" on the ietf network, but a standard, 
supported, announced at the same time, at the same level as IPv4.

Sorry, this is not a technical mail.

Marc, who is still happy to help and provide IPv6 connectivity, but is 
looking for commitment from the organisation that designed IPv6...

PS. please understand that this message is not targetted to any individual 
or any specific event. It is a general comment.

Marc Blanchet
Viagénie inc.
tel: 418-656-9254
http://www.viagenie.qc.ca

----------------------------------------------------------
Normos (http://www.normos.org): Internet standards portal:
IETF RFC, drafts, IANA, W3C, ATMForum, ISO, ... all in one place.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 01:28:26 +0100 (CET)

> network should be on the same support level and same commitment from the

I think wireless LAN is more or less standard at IETFs now because there
is a strong demand for it and many people use it.

So lets all use IPv6 at the next IETF as much as possible and show there
is a large demand and many people use it. I guess Itojun will provide
usage numbers again. I hope those numbers show an increasing amount of
IPv6 users at IETFs during the last few years.

Maybe the 802.11b network in the ngtrans and ipng rooms should be
IPv6 only :-)

BTW, the last few years the RIPE staff have provided IPv6 connectivity
at the RIPE meetings.

	rvdp

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 09:36:23 +0900

>IPv6 users at IETFs during the last few years.

	There are situations where IPv6 becomes mandatory at conferences -
	DHCP address pool shortage.  Because there are a lot of 802.11 users,
	and the number of laptop/802.11 users increase, it is getting harder
	to estimate # of users on wireless segment (with wired ethernet we
	could set an upper limit by # of wires).

	At USENIX annual few years ago, DHCP lease time was set to too large
	value, and DHCP address pool went totally sold out.  I was doing
	just fine because I used IPv6 :-)

>Maybe the 802.11b network in the ngtrans and ipng rooms should be

	we should be IPv6-only at Tokyo IETF meeting, year 2002 :-)

>BTW, the last few years the RIPE staff have provided IPv6 connectivity

	great!  maybe we need to supply easy-to-setup configuration for
	terminal room team.  I'll be very happy to help.

itojun

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 16:47:40 -0800

back in '95 or so, the dhcp server for a few ietfs was my laptop, which i
left plugged in for the whole meeting.  eventually the ACTUAL USE of dhcp
became sufficiently large that it became obvious thit this was a useful
service and worth the extra pain.  and so it became normal for the host
to provide it.

i presume that ACTUALY USE will eventually cause ipv6 to be standard fare
at the meetings.  i suspect that what we have here is a micro-example of
our problem in the general market, the benefits of ipv6 are not perceived
as sufficiently compelling.  we need to change that, not by demanding,
but by making the benefits significantly better and better perceived.

randy