tal at whatexit.org
Mon Sep 17 12:04:31 UTC 2012
My biggest fear is that statements like this will take on a life of their own:
" I can dual stack, then I am not out of IPv4 addresses, and thus I
have no need for IPv6. If I'm out of IPv4 then I need IPv6 and I can't
dual stack." http://forum.ubnt.com/showthread.php?p=355722
Not true but it certainly sounds logical to the average person.
What creates this impression is that there is no "deadline". The IPv4
-> Dual Stack -> pure IPv6 transition is complex so everyone focuses
on "IPv4 -> Dual Stack" forgetting that it is a transition step. The
final step seems so far off that people ignore it, and therefore the
justification for the first step fades.
(the remainder of this post is brainstorming; apply a grain of salt)
There are ways to fix this. For example there was a deadline for when
Dual Stack was to go away, a "Dual Stack 10 year count-down" would
drive the point home. However nothing like this exists.
This thread is making me think that I should change how I talk about
IPv6 publicly. I need to put more emphasis on DS as being a temporary
thing. It is in my mind but perhaps not in how I speak.
The problem with picking a 10-year or 5-year "campaign" is that
underestimating the amount of time makes us look like "the sky is
falling" and too long gives people a reason to procrastinate.
Then again... I believe what will make the biggest # of people adopt
IPv6 will be if they see everyone else adopting it. That's why it is
so important for IPv6 to be offered by default to all new ISP
customers, that tech-savy enterprises need to deploy it, and so on.
It is all about building a critical mass.
Speaking at MacTech Conference 2012. http://mactech.com/conference"
http://EverythingSysadmin.com -- my blog
http://www.TomOnTime.com -- my videos
More information about the NANOG