[ppml] IPv6 getting real: was Policy Proposal: IPv4 TransferPolicy Proposal

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

> As I stated earlier, the biggest drawback up here in the 
> boonies is that none of my upstream providers are offering 
> IPv6.  The day after I have
> IPv6 upstream available I will be routing, in some shape or fashion.

This is a widely held position which suggests that IPv6 will
mainly be deployed from the network core outwards to the edges.
This means that the largest ISPs and other core service providers
have to be first. When I say "core service providers" I mean things
like DNS providers (finally IPv6 glue records are appearing in root
nameservers) and RIRs like ARIN. 

I don't consider ARIN conference attendees to be core service
providers which is why I consider the shutting down of IPv4
service to be little more than a stunt. ARIN plays the role of
ISP during a conference and it is ARIN which should be adapting
their services not the attendees. If ARIN cannot offer an Internet
service that just plain works, regardless of whether a laptop has
IPv4 or IPv6 or both configured, then who can? Where will we learn
to provide such a service? The only thing that comes from this
stunt, other than some disruption of the meeting, is that a few
people will get their laptops configured to run with both IPv4
and IPv6, but this does NOTHING to further the work that needs
to be done.

Of course today the answer probably is that nobody can. But if we
don't begin to make the effort, however imperfect, we will not 
get through this transition without a lot of pain. 

In the early days of the Internet, a lot of things did not work 
properly. But people repeatedly came together at meetings like
Interop to try and make things work, take notes on problem areas,
and go back home to fix what was broken. Eventually, this paid off.
IPv6 is no different and will not just fall from the sky, fully
formed and perfect, wrapped up in a nice turquoise box with a 
vendor's label on the side.

--Michael Dillon