WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)

John Curran jcurran at mail.com
Sun Sep 30 13:37:08 UTC 2007

At 7:56 PM +0930 9/30/07, Mark Prior wrote:
>It would be nice to see some evidence of some forward motion but I don't
>see any. The vendors seem to point at a lack of demand and the ISPs
>claim a lack of support from the vendors and/or not customer demand.

It's going to get real interesting, since (in general):

1) Customers aren't going to ask for IPv6 (it's not their problem)
2) ISP's may plan a few years out, but don't make capital commitments
    until they're absolutely required.
3) It takes most vendors 3 to 6 months to move requirements through
    marketing and 1 year plus for engineering and chip design.

Alas, this particular feature set (functional IPv6 and transition tools)
is not just one new protocol feature or option; it's an order of magnitude
more complex and will take ISP's months (or even years) to deploy.

It's amazing that got the need for the new protocol right more than a
decade ago, but seemed to have left all the details to the last minute.

>If the ISPs tried to deploy it for themselves then perhaps this current
>impasse could be broken and the current shortcomings would then have
>some visibility with the vendors and that might encourage the IETF to
>address the real issues.


>A quick look at some of the usual suspects shows not much consumption of
>their own dog food.

Very nice chart!

More information about the NANOG mailing list