On 2/6/14, Phil Mayers <[email protected]> wrote: >> That's exactly the idea. It's explicitly *NOT* to break others' >> networks nor to have the innocent users suffer. > > Ok. But if you read the replies to the original email, it's clear a lot > of people didn't get that. So there is a messaging problem here. >
Upon rereading the text "all devices we use" might mean "servers" for some. I added the clarification to make the intent more explicit, as well as a "it goes without saying" post-scriptum at the end. Hopefully this will make it more explicit that this is not a call to get the IT professionals to go and gratuitously cut off the wires off the live servers. > >> If you are talking about the original wording on the AVAAZ - I'd be >> very happy to hear better wording, feel free to unicast. > > My problem is entirely with the work point. Denying yourself online > shopping and facebook is just that - self-denial. Though a really brave > option would be to do that *permanently*, and let the retailers know why > you're *never* shopping with them until they're v6-ready. To start with it, we'd need at least one retailer that *does* support IPv6. Are there any at all ? If not - then one would need to create a large enough group that would express this as a single entity - if it were to get big enough, it might make it interesting for some retailer to cater to this group. > > Denying yourself the ability to work *in the field you're trying to > affect change* seems futile. > > It would be better to go to work, try and work with IPv4 disabled, make > a note of everything that didn't work, then commit to fixing it all > before the same time next year. That's both far harder, and far more > productive, than throwing your hands in the air and saying "nothing > works without IPv4" - which is not a surprising conclusion ;o) I thought about it a lot at the time of writing that sentence and indeed my first reaction was to write pretty much exactly what you suggest. It's great, challenge and all, and it works - if the professional in question is in direct authority to change the situation. But if they aren't - what can they do ? What I ended up with seemed like the least unreasonable idea for a lowest common denominator. But I am very open to another not-too-unreasonable idea that is achievable. Making it "harder" is not a desirable property, though. Maybe transforming this into a "taking a day off and using this time to educate the others and help them with their IPv6 deployment" could be a better option ? Take a day off because you can't do work without IPv6 and then use this time to configure an IPv6-only SSID with NAT64 on a network where you *do* have control (may be still a different segment at work, or maybe your home network) or test a couple of apps and submit bug reports - how does this sound ? > >>> IMHO effort at this point would be best directed to the large, holdout >>> broadband providers in countries with low uptake (e.g. BT in the UK). >>> >> >> What would that effort consist of ? > > That is an excellent question which I am not well equipped to answer. If > there is anyone on the list with insight in the UK broadband market, and > any workable suggestions and/or hopeful news, I'd love to hear it. > The next IETF is by a coincidence in London in just a few weeks. Might be interesting to pop by and ask this question during the plenary and see if any ideas emerge. :-) --a
