[arin-ppml] The non-deployment of IPv6

[Steve Bertrand]

Chris Engel wrote:

[...snip...]

> Not trying to pick on you Lee.... but try to see things from my side. IPv6 is a huge cost for near ZERO gain from my perspective (other then addressing IPv4 runout). It's undoubted that we'll need connectivity to IPv6 address space at some-point. Obviously the natural inclination to achieve that is with as little disruption/change/cost to the existing infrastructure as possible. From my perspective that would be some sort of IPv4/IPv6 gateway services or proxy or something similar.... ideally deployed at the network perimeter. Obviously if an acceptable solution of that sort doesn't exist... we'll have to start looking for PLAN B.
> Given the magnitude of what PLAN B might entail.... we're certainly going to try hard to avoid it if possible. If going to IPv6 native was that simple/easy for us....we wouldn't be considering a different alternative first.

I'm trying to envision the problem from your perspective. I'd like to
ask this:

What, if anything, would your ISP be able to do to help you at least
begin the transition/implementation?

Is there anything that an ISP could do differently other than just be
'IPv6 enabled'? Can the ISP community _ease_ its very large enterprise
clients into this somehow? If so, what would you ask them to do?

Are there any ideas out there regarding how an *SP could aid their
enterprise clients with their migration (erm, initial implementation) of
IPv6? What about for our most dedicated, long-term clients. Would an ISP
be willing to shoulder a bit of the cost in time-spent helping them out?

Or is this purely a hardware-upgrade thing?

I'm thinking purely from the perspective of having IPv6 ROUTING
available. The desktop/server is not what I'm concerned about at this
point. I just want to know what can be done differently so that the
backbone of the enterprise can communicate via v6, and when the PCs are
upgraded, they have a network ready to talk on.

Steve