IPv6 services trial

michael.dillon at bt.com michael.dillon at bt.com
Tue May 29 14:37:35 UTC 2007


> This is useless. Users need to use the same name for both 
> IPv4 and IPv6, they should not notice it.

This is *NOT* useless. If a user network is connected to an ISP only
through IPv6, then it is very useful indeed, if they can access email
services or any other service provided by Yahoo, Google and others.
Remember, that the day will come when users must choose between a purely
IPv6 Internet connnection, or no new connection at all. In that
scenario, access to services is what counts. It would be nice if the
setup was effortless, but that is not necessary.

But look at it from a different point of view. That day has not yet
arrived so ISPs do not currently have to provide services to users over
a pure IPv6 connection. The suggestion for Yahoo was made with the
intention of TRIALING IPv6. That is most definitely *NOT* useless to
ISPs and content providers. Nobody was saying that ISPs should begin to
move customers onto IPv6 right now using special ipv6 subdomains.

Your statement about what users should and should not do, reminds me of
Communist party thinking. Several countries have tried out central
planning by "experts" on a large scale and it has been proven to be
unworkable and sub-optimal. I think that there is a general consensus,
among ISPs at least, that transition to IPv6 will be gradual and will be
done on a needs basis, not centrally planned by governments or RIRs or
experts. ISPs are, for the most part, business enterprises which make
their planning decisions based on customer demand. If customers don't
notice something, then they won't demand it.

So, I think that the vast majority of ISPs do want customers to notice
the transition to IPv6. They do want customers to understand the
imperatives of IPv4 exhaustion. They do want customers to engage with
them on IPv6, so that ISPs can provide the right kind of services for
each different customer type. In some cases, that will involve things
like IPv4-IPv6 application layer web proxies which the network
engineering crowd would detest. Or maybe Akamai will come up with some
kind of IPv4-IPv6 redirection scheme complete with backdoor IPv4
double-NAT tunnels.

The work may be done on the base technology of IPv6, but there is still
a lot of scope for work on transition of SERVICES (not networks) to an
IPv6 world.

> And if there are issues (my experience is not that one), we 
> need to know them ASAP. Any transition means some pain, but 
> as sooner as we start, sooner we can sort it out, if required.

What's this? You disagree with yourself?

OK, I'm with you fellas...

--Michael Dillon

O Brother, Where Art Thou?




More information about the NANOG mailing list