[arin-ppml] IPV6, Not yet (OT)

Ted Mittelstaedt tedm at ipinc.net
Thu Apr 14 17:06:02 EDT 2011

On 4/14/2011 1:24 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Sent from my iPad
> On Apr 14, 2011, at 3:23 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt<tedm at ipinc.net>  wrote:
>> On 4/14/2011 12:07 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> You are assuming goals not in evidence. I don't seek to harm the vendor.
>>> I don't seek to help the vendor. If the result is equal amounts of help and
>>> harm, then, my lack of desire on either of these goals is roughly met.
>>> I seek to encourage vendors to do the right thing and add IPv6 capabilities
>>> to their products. I seek to help others be aware of which products are and
>>> are not worthy of their purchasing dollars based on their IPv6 capabilities.
>>> As such, I think that publicly naming the vendors is much better than not
>>> naming them.
>> Well and good but in this case since the model number of the switch
>> that is never going to receive IPv6 support was not named, and just the
>> vendor was named, it is actually kind of unfair.
> I think it's a fair caveat emptor about their products in general having a
> variable level of IPv6 support at best.
>> Unless your going to claim the YouTube video is a complete fabrication?
> I have no idea. I'm not making such an accusation, but, I'm also not inclined
> to disbelieve the claim that they said it wasn't on their roadmap for at least
> some portion of their product family.
>> Obviously Transition Networks supports IPv6.  It just isn't planning on
>> supporting it in the particular product that Larry wanted to buy. Perhaps that is because they are planning on sunsetting that product a
>> lot faster than Larry thinks, or perhaps because it is a stripped-down
>> product that is kind of a loss-leader for them.
> Regardless of the reason, I agree it would be better if Larry mentioned the
> affected models, but, I still think mentioning the brand is better than nothing.
>> If your going to tar and feather a vendor in public about not supporting
>> IPv6 then you might as well tar and feather Cisco since they sell those
>> cheap Linksys routers many of which don't support IPv6 and never will.
>> (unless some smarty pants comes along and loads openwrt or some such on
>> them, har har)
> I don't believe anyone here used tar or feathers. I believe we increased
> community awareness of the fact that Transition Networks is still trying
> to sell at least one product that does not support IPv6 and has no plans
> to do so.

We are going to see a lot of this for some time.  It is SOP in many 
industries that when something new comes along that not all products get 
it.  Look at airbags in the auto biz - the fact is that side airbags
offer far more protection to a BELTED-in vehicle occupant than front
air bags do (front bags are basically useless to a belted individual) 
but the automakers held off putting them in many models in the beginning.

>> I think that the problem here is that since Larry didn't list the model of the switch he was looking at, the rest of us can't go look at it and
>> make any value judgements.  I would bet that the switch he was looking at was a cheap model of Transitions.  So really what he's mad at is not
>> that the vendor doesn't support IPv6, it's that he thinks the vendor's
>> price for IPv6 is too high.
> Given that my very low end Juniper SRX-100 supports IPv6 and my
> relatively low-end Apple Time Capsules and Airport Extreme support
> IPv6, I do not buy the idea that low-end products should somehow
> be given a pass at this point.

Juniper and Apple do not sell low-end products.  Their idea of low-end
is everyone else's mid-to-high end.  Apples to Oranges comparison.

 > IPv6 is base network functionality that
> must be present in a device for it to be worthy of my purchase dollars
> at any price today.
> If a vendor is charging a premium for IPv6, then, I think he has a valid
> point.

I don't agree.  IPv6 isn't necessary for managing a layer 2 switch that
does not route.  Such a switch will happily pass IPv6 packets even
though it's management card may ignore them.  If a network manager
decides to save money by buying and deploying a switch like this then 
while you or I may not ever do it ourselves, what is the harm?

It takes development time and dollars for any product, and adding in
IPv6 support isn't any different.  The manufacturer had to spend R&D
dollars to add an IPv6 stack into the management card and so they are
going to pass that cost to the consumer.

If a manufacturer chooses to offer a stripped product using 5 year
old technology that does not support IPv6 then I do not see the harm
in it as long as the product isn't be whored off for the same price
that the new tech product is.  Some manufacturers do this and charge
low prices for that stuff - what do you think Walmart is stuffed with?

>> The fact is that selling stripped-down models of things for low prices
>> as an introductory model is very common practice.  For example a few months ago I bought a BlueRay player from LG.  It does not support Netflix.  But other players from LG do support Netflix.  The difference
>> is the other players that support Netflix are about $50 more per player.
>> So using your logic I should be getting on the blogs and bitching that
>> LG is a bad vendor for not supporting it.
> Yes, but, the difference is that Netflix is an ancillary additional feature that
> does not relate to the performance of your LG player as a Blu Ray disc
> player.
> IPv6 is not an optional ancillary function unrelated to a switches ability to
> function as an IP network switch. It is core functionality. It would be like
> LG producing a unit for $50 less that did not support forward or reverse
> scan or multi-layer discs or one that only had NTSC composite output.

Apparently you aren't aware that some manufacturers are producing "High 
Def" TV sets that use an actual glass picture tube.  They just took an
existing NTSC 480p TV set design and tacked a HD-to-NTSC converter
on to it.  The TV may decode a 1040p video stream but it isn't possible
for it's display device to show it or even 728p.

I could see LG or other manufacturer producing a combination 
BlueRay/DVD/VCR/HD Tuner unit that only output in NTSC for use with an
older TV set in the $39.95 range.  It would sell like hotcakes to
the blue-haired crowd who just need something for the grandkids
to run their new-fangled disks on when they are over.

> Nobody would buy such a thing if they knew what they were buying.

Would they?

What if someone came to you and said that we want you to build us a
network that will be used for a big trade show that will have 300 ports
of fast ethernet on it, and it will need to run IPv6 and be completely
flat - and then after the show we are just going to pitch all the
switches into the garbage so we want them as cheap as possible.

And, by the way, they continue, every dollar you save on network
hardware we will contribute to ARIN's IPv6 education fund, so the
cheaper the gear you get, the more money goes to ARIN.


>> Well the fact is that if you look at the LG product blogs you WILL find
>> people doing just that.  Fortunately, you find more people telling them to STFU because that is what they get for not doing their homework.
> Sigh, yes, you can get all kinds of hostility in most consumer electronics
> or software forums. It doesn't inform or assist in the discussion and I
> wouldn't exactly hold it up as the shining example of useful public behavior.
> Owen
>> Ted
>>> Owen
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>> On Apr 14, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt<tedm at ipinc.net>   wrote:
>>>> Well, here is a video of a Transition Networks guy
>>>> saying at least one of their Ethernet switches is IPv6
>>>> capable:
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0tw_uJXv00
>>>> Now in answer to your other question as to why people
>>>> don't name names, it is because there is a saying among marketing folks:
>>>> "bad news is better than NO news"
>>>> I've also heard it expressed:
>>>> "good news is good, but bad news is also good!"
>>>> Think for a moment that this list is archived.  So a web robot
>>>> will be crawling the archive sooner or later and come across
>>>> the vendor name.  That will give the vendor a boost in the
>>>> search engines.  So by publicly naming the vendor, you
>>>> probably help them as much as you harm them.
>>>> You should also keep in mind the old adage about sales
>>>> and marketing people:
>>>> "When do you know when a marketing or sales person is lying?"
>>>> "When their lips are moving!" ;-)
>>>> Ted
>>>> On 4/14/2011 10:13 AM, Aaron Wendel wrote:
>>>>> I don't understand why people feel it necessary not to shame these
>>>>> vendors in public. I would like to remove them from my list as well.
>>>>> /Sent via DROID on Verizon Wireless/
>>>>> -----Original message-----
>>>>>     *From: *Larry Ash<lar at mwtcorp.net>*
>>>>>     To: *arin-ppml at arin.net*
>>>>>     Sent: *Thu, Apr 14, 2011 16:31:25 GMT+00:00*
>>>>>     Subject: *[arin-ppml] IPV6, Not yet (OT)
>>>>>     Sorry for the distraction,
>>>>>     I send this along only to remind those of us that maintain IPV4 will
>>>>>     die shortly,
>>>>>     Before purchasing switching equipment for the customer edge on a
>>>>>     metro-ethernet
>>>>>     deployment I questioned the manufacturer about IPV6 and here was the
>>>>>     reply.
>>>>>     -----------------------------------------------
>>>>>     The information I received from the Product Management team is that
>>>>>     IPV6 is
>>>>>     not on the road map for this product at this time. If you need any other
>>>>>     assistance please contact us.
>>>>>     ---------------------------------
>>>>>     This is a fairly new product that has a lot of sexy features many of
>>>>>     which
>>>>>     rely on layer3 yet the manufacturer is not even planning IPV6. I did
>>>>>     inform
>>>>>     them that I am removing them from any consideration for any of their
>>>>>     products.
>>>>>     The word is still not getting to management in a meaningful way.
>>>>>     Larry Ash
>>>>>     Network Administrator
>>>>>     Mountain West Telephone
>>>>>     123 W 1st St.
>>>>>     Casper, WY 82601
>>>>>     Office 307 233-8387
>>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>>     PPML
>>>>>     You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>>>>     the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>>>>>     Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>>>     http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>>>>     Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PPML
>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PPML
>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list