[arin-discuss] ipv6 technology supplier phone bank?

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

> If ARIN really wanted to make a dent they would have to be 
> very, very aggressive.  If I was king of the world, in charge 
> of all RIR's, I would immediately cease issuing IP addressing 
> to ALL large ISP networks that did not agree to MANDATE that 
> their CPE vendors include IPv6 code in their new CPE models 
> within a year.

We are a big ISP and when we went to our broadband CPE vendor and
asked for IP6 support, it only took them about a month to produce
it. Within weeks we had 100 trial broadband users up and running
using the upgraded devices. It was a good experience because it
pointed out various weak areas, between the CPE and the first 
real IP router, as well as Operational Support Software (OSS)
and IPv6 peering.

For the big ISPs, I don't think that CPE is such a big issue.
If the need is there then vendors can move quickly. One area that
should be fixed is that the Broadband forum is dragging its feet 
on a standard broadband gateway spec including IPv6. I expect that
a lot of CPE vendors are waiting for this and also suspect that
lack of ISP input is one thing causing this to lag behind.

There are no simple solutions here. It is a tangle of interdependencies
between various types of business, various types of technology,
and people with varying levels of knowledge. It's the kind of
thing where you poke it in order to see what kind of reaction
you get, and then deal with whatever comes up. Then poke it
again, rinse repeat. Eventually enough of the problem is 
handled that you can map out clear roadmaps to an endgame.

> In essense, no more IP addressing of any kind to Verizon, 
> Qwest, Comcast, SBC, yadda yadda yadda until those companies 
> signed an agreement stating that from now on, IPv6 will be a 
> required component of all new Cable/DSL/Fios/Wireless CPE 
> gear that they supply to the retail Internet access market.  

While I wouldn't support that, I think that it would do no
harm to get that as a formal proposal before the PPML. That would
poke the chaotic web of interdependencies, and provide some
targets to deal with. Call it a multi-pronged strategy.

I really do expect the market analysts to eventually gain some
understanding of this issue and start grilling CFOs and CEOs 
over their firms readiness for IPv6 deployment. Maybe such
a policy proposal will trigger that.

> However, the one good thing is that in Vista, as well as in 
> Windows 7, Microsoft has made IPv6 a requirement for Windows 
> Meeting Space, as well as Windows Peer to Peer Networking 
> Platform.  This is a step in the right direction towards 
> getting people to switch over.

If you explain this to marketing people and product design people,
then the wheels will start spinning in their heads because this
is the kind of thing that they understand. We have hidden IPv6
under a bushel in the technical community for too long. Now we
need to get other types of people engaged in the task ahead.

> For these reasons, getting the edge fully IPv6 compliant is 
> going to take solid Windows 7 penetration which won't happen 
> until 2011 at the least.

That may be just in time. And if IPv6 will help MS drive Win7
penetration, then they may turn out to be a useful partner in
the IPv6 deployment process. Lets get that IPv6 sprint off the
ground, make a kit so that it can be done at other tech conferences
and then try to get MS to sponsor an IPv6 sprint at one of their
many conferences.

--Michael Dillon