[ppml] Any backbones that do route IPv6?

[John M. Brown]

right, its called   Chicken and Egg.

When HTML was created and a textual browser existed
nobody really cared.  Sure us geeks liked it, it was 
cool, and then someone created a Xwindows version, and
then someone added the ability to have images, and then
someone added clickable images, and tables, and mouseovers,
and and and and.

Today we have a robust set of various browsers.

What I'm basicly trying to say is that the rules today
prohibit someone from taking the browser to a graphical
system.

Sure there is little test networks here and there, there are
6to4 tunnels, but people are viewing those a hacks and not
something they can or will sink time/money into.  Thus
no development.

I currently have 2 6to4 tunnels.  Latency to my v6 next hop
is over 1200ms, and thats on a good day.  Not very usable 
in my mind.......  One tunnel flaps on a regular basis
because of upstream transit issues. 





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Whipple, Scott (CCI-Atlanta) [mailto:Scott.Whipple at cox.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 2:05 PM
> To: john at chagres.net; Alec H. Peterson; Mury; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] Any backbones that do route IPv6?
> 
> 
> I would agree the examples you give below of why backbones 
> haven't deployed v6 yet are accurate but I think you could 
> also use those same reasons why a small ISP or end-user 
> wouldn't deploy it as well.  I would disagree that the 
> guidelines for receiving a block of v6 is why we aren't 
> seeing nation wide 
> deployment.  As a X-large ISP I would be glad to deploy v6 if 
> I thought it 
> would be profitable for the company.  IPv6 at this point is 
> not a necessity 
> that's why there isn't deployment with backbone providers 
> small ISPs or end-users.  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John M. Brown [mailto:john at chagres.net]
> Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 3:44 PM
> To: 'Alec H. Peterson'; 'Mury'; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] Any backbones that do route IPv6?
> 
> 
> I think you are missing the point Alec.
> 
> Backbones won't deploy because:
> 
> * There isn't a demand for it
> * Cost to upgrade IOS images
> * Cost to train people on how to use it
> * Cost to upgrade NOC and other OSS tools
> 
> 
> The cost items are related to people not demanding the 
> service.  As demand grows the relevance of cost to deploy
> goes down as a function of potential revenue from a new 
> product/service offering.
> 
> What we have today is a policy that is preventing the 
> end users from starting to use the technologies.
> 
> Lets take an example from the software distribution market.
> 
> The players:
> 
> Quarterdeck, makers of a memory management tool and Xwindows code
> 
> TechData, Ingram, SoftSel, all distributors
> 
> CompUSA, ComputerLand, Freds Bait and Software, retailers
> 
> Alex, John, Ray and Barb, end users looking for some software 
> that will manage memory for them.
> 
> 
> Now folks like TD, Ingram and others typically don't start 
> selling someones product unless they can see, pull or the 
> software company can show push.
> 
> Typically you want more PULL thru the channel than you want PUSH.  
> 
> That translates into people (end sites) USING AND WANTING
> the product that the order it.
> 
> 
> With respect to v6, there is no customer demand for it, 
> retailers (ISP's) aren't stocking it, and backbones 
> (distributors) aren't stocking it or making it avail for sale.
> 
> Early adopters (end clients) can't find it and have to make without.
> 
> The policy today places barriers to sites that wish to really 
> do work with v6. 
> 
> In the end you have a stalled out product that needs some
> PUSH (more relaxed policy letting more folks get space),
> so that PULL will happen and the distributors (backbones)
> will start to offer it.
> 
> cheers
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On
> > Behalf Of Alec H. Peterson
> > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 1:32 PM
> > To: Mury; ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [ppml] Any backbones that do route IPv6?
> > 
> > 
> > --On Thursday, January 9, 2003 14:35 -0600 Mury
> > <mury at goldengate.net> wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > > There was some speculation that backbones were or were not routing
> > > IPv6. I've checked with Genuity and Qwest and both have 
> > told me they
> > > have no plans to support the routing of IPv6.
> > >
> > > Does anyone know of a backbone that will route IPv6?
> > >
> > > I know this does not directly pertain to policy, but if
> > it's true that
> > > no backbones will route IPv6 than perhaps a policy needs to
> > be created
> > > to encourage them to do so.
> > 
> > I think you're missing the big picture here Mury.
> > 
> > Simply acquiring IPv6 space is not preventing its deployment.
> >  There are 
> > many, many more issues out there surrounding its deployment.  
> > We could pay 
> > backbones $10k each and give each of them a /33 of IPv6 
> > address space and 
> > they still wouldn't deploy it.
> > 
> > Alec
> > 
> > --
> > Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com
> > Chief Technology Officer
> > Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com
> > 
>