Subject: focussing energies

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 09:44:04 -0800

So, what to get from these latest discussion?
My 0.02$:

a) the best model is to get ISPs to deploy IPv6 to their customer. No 
transition mechanism is better
than anything else. Most ISPs won't do it unless there is strong 
motivation:
- political mandate to do so
- political incentive (like tax break)
- customer asking for it
The first two are outside the realm of IETF. The last one will only be 
driven by the new applications
requiring/working better with IPv6. Nothing here that this wg can do 
about.

b) assisted tunneling works best in the scenario of an ISP willing to 
offer IPv6 service
but not ready yet to pay to deploy native service. Those mechanisms, 
like tunnel broker,
not only provide IPv6 connectivity to the user, but also to help the 
ISP to jump start
IPv6 service to its customers at low cost. This is an area where 
standardization from
this wg could help a lot.

c) when ISPs are not cooperating, there is the choice between two evils:
- fully automatic solutions, with their share of complexity, security 
issues,...
- tunnel brokers operated by third parties, with possible sub-optimal 
paths and complex set-up.

The point I'm trying to make is that, IMHO, this wg should not spend to 
much effort on c)
[i.e. there are implemented solution, let's document them and move on]
because:
	1) either IPv6 will take off and ISPs will start to cooperate, thus 
we're back to case b)
	2) ISP still don't cooperate in the near future, meaning that they see 
IPv6 as going nowhere,
	so why should this wg and software vendors invest in complex 
transition mechanisms?
and focus its energies on standardizing a solution for b)

	- Alain.

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 10:05:25 -0800

>> requiring/working better with IPv6. Nothing here that this wg can do 

	Agree, although I would say something more like "IPv6
	will reach wide-scale deployment if and when there is a
	revenue stream with margin supporting that deployment"
	(however that comes about). 
	
>> this wg could help a lot.

	So here's a question: Who is deploying "auto-tunneling"
	(of any kind, really) at any scale? For the moment assume
	that the "auto-tunneling" technique requires resources in
	the SP's network. 

	Dave

---

From: "EricLKlein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 21:03:02 +0200

From: "Alain Durand" <[email-masked]>
> requiring/working better with IPv6. Nothing here that this wg can do
Just keep in mind that some governments have mandated that all services be
transitioned to IPv6 by fixed dates (off the top of my head I know that
Japan and the EU have mandated dates) but I am not sure what the penalties
are for failing to meet these mandates.

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:17:01 -0800

>> are for failing to meet these mandates.

Good point: So make that revenue stream or governmental mandate. 

Dave

---

From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 23:24:41 +0100

Yes, and more may be coming from EU in the comming months ...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "EricLKlein" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: focussing energies

> are for failing to meet these mandates.

**********************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 09:04:07 +0200 (EET)

This is a very important topic, but as it mostly goes to issues beyond 
our control, let's hope the thread does not get out of hand...

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Alain Durand wrote:
[...]
> b) assisted tunneling works best in the scenario of an ISP willing
> to offer IPv6 service but not ready yet to pay to deploy native
> service. Those mechanisms, like tunnel broker, not only provide IPv6
> connectivity to the user, but also to help the ISP to jump start
> standardization from this wg could help a lot.
> 

[...]

> 	so why should this wg and software vendors invest in complex

There is a middle ground here: ISPs not knowing when is the right take
to start taking IPv6 seriously, and actually deploying it in a
fast-track fashion.  Most, especially those who look the red/black
bottom line, have been just biding their time.  They wait for the user
demand or some push from any direction.  This push could be achieved
either through a) [which is outside of our scope] or through some v6
application getting popular.  Barring outside agencies, we seem to
need to work on enabling that "application landslide".  More of that
below.

> and focus its energies on standardizing a

My take on this is that being able to crack the chicken-and-egg
problem is likely to take a while -- measured in years.  We have to
provide means for app developers to deploy v6 applications which might
make IPv6 fly.  In the general case, deploying v6 applications is only
possible if there is sufficient IPv6 penetration, e.g., through the
use of automatic transition mechanisms.  (Otherwise the app developers
just keep using IPv4 band-aids, and we never get to IPv6 in the first
place -- and similarly, if an app is v4-capable, the users/vendors
don't see the push to move to v6!)

So, my personal gut feeling is that we need to tackle the first
subcase of c), while the second is not useful for the mass deployment.
If all goes well, this stage would be only short-term.

b) is equally interesting; if coupled with a) in particular, the local
ISPs might be keen to offer some IPv6 service.  This is probably
something that could be applicable for a slighly longer term than c)  
subcase 1).

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 09:26:42 +0100

The EU has certainly not mandated any such thing. They burnt their fingers
badly with OSI mandates 15 years ago, and are unlikely to repeat that
mistake. There is substantial EU support for IPv6 deployment, but that
is far from being a mandate.

  Brian

---

From: "EricLKlein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 11:02:17 +0200

From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>
> is far from being a mandate.

Correct, they have initiated the eEurope 2005 program that is "recommends"
deployment by 2005, with each country forming their own plan. It looks like
the UK and France are pushing to be first with several others in close
second (only Italy seems to be without a plan).
Eric

---

From: "Jeroen Massar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 13:57:07 +0100

EricLKlein wrote:

> Correct, they have initiated the eEurope 2005 program that is 
> "recommends" deployment by 2005, with each country forming their own plan. 
> It looks like the UK and France are pushing to be first with several others
> in close second (only Italy seems to be without a plan).

FYI and OT: even The Netherlands seems to be without a plan.
Or to be precise the dutch _goverment_ seems to be without a plan.
They noticed that there was this big bucket full of money and
suddenly they are hiring stupid 'consultants' who 'know IPv6'
and let them write reports why the businesses should start
doing IPv6. The fun part here is that IPv6 has been around
in the ISP world for quite some time already in the Netherlands
taking quite a big lead actually in comparison to some of
the bigger countries. I would even go so far as trying to say
that the Netherlands has a global top 10 listing of well
connected IPv6 countries.

But this is the IETF and not a political list ;)

Greets,
 Jeroen

---

From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 21:15:10 +0100

Well, certainly is not a "mandate" as such, but a high level recommendation (some times is more important and respected that a mandate), and a strong push and help at the same time.

By the way, Spain is the one that is leading, even stronger than France. Also I will say Germany is pushing now stronger than UK.

Regards,
Jordi

---

From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 21:20:46 +0100

Jerome,

Is coming ... wait until after summer and stay tuned ;-)

Regards,
Jordi

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeroen Massar" <[email-masked]>
To: "'EricLKlein'" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 1:57 PM
Subject: RE: focussing energies

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> EricLKlein wrote:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook
> Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/
> 
> iQBGBAERAgAQCRApqihSMz58IwUCQFb5ogAAmzoAn138+q4Mt8nB4M2zufqBpTUH
> SS4kAJ4jSE+QyxT6OZ9kBQLFtzRoOIEqaQ==
> =Oj4u
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

---

From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 23:24:41 +0100

---

From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 23:24:41 +0100

---

From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 23:24:41 +0100

---

From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 23:24:41 +0100

---

From: "EricLKlein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 11:02:17 +0200

---

From: "EricLKlein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 11:02:17 +0200

---

From: "EricLKlein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 11:02:17 +0200

---

From: "EricLKlein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 11:02:17 +0200

---

From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 01:16:01 +0100

As said, Spain is the faster mover ;-), then France, Germany, ...

And Italy is working on a plan, that hopefully will be ready after summer, maximum end of year time frame.

Regards,
Jordi

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 09:04:07 +0200 (EET)

[...]

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 09:04:07 +0200 (EET)

[...]

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 09:04:07 +0200 (EET)

[...]

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 09:04:07 +0200 (EET)

[...]

---

From: "Raffaele D'Albenzio" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 15:50:58 +0100

Hi,

Italy started working in order to have a plan in the next months.

Bye,
Raffaele.

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 17:03:25 +0200 (EET)

(co-chair hat on)

(Not saying Raffaele or anyone else in particular, but in general..)

Please -- let's try to kill this thread about government mandates, how 
far IPv6 deployment is in each country, etc.

This could go on for long, and there are enough tough issues to 
discuss on the list already :-)

Thanks!