Hello all,

At the last LACNIC event, I mentioned on a couple of occasions the need for 
ISPs in the region, especially small and medium-sized ones, to participate in 
the decisions taken in the IETF IPv6 Operations Working Group (v6ops). I’m 
sending this here as well, as I believe the situation also apply to this region.

When I asked among the attendees how many participate in v6ops, only one person 
raised his hand.

What does it mean to participate in the mailing list? Follow some emails 
(sometimes only 1-2 a week, sometimes they can be several in a day), and 
therefore learn about what is being discussed and give your opinion and, given 
that decisions are made by Consensus, influence them.

What consequences has NOT participating? That decisions against your 
interests/opinions could be taken, and obviously do not consider your 
perspective in the standards. Generally large operators are involved, which 
implies that your interests are not sufficiently represented, and in general 
are contrary to yours. Your "vote/opinion" is not worth more than yours, but 
the big one is present and the small/medium NO!

I give you a very concrete example. The serious problem that small and medium 
ISPs have, is to continue offering IPv6 and IPv4 services to their customers, 
when they already do not have IPv4 addresses. Only the biggest ISPs have a 
great purchasing power and can influence the manufacturers to do for them what 
they need. One possibility to solve it, extending the life of IPv4, but not 
necessarily deploying IPv6, is using CGN, which is also very expensive, and 
breaks many things.

The solution is simple. Deploying IPv6-only services in the last mile, which 
involves using transition mechanisms, such as 464XLAT that has been deployed on 
millions of smartphones worldwide, so that applications continue to operate 
transparently as they "believe" they have IPv4.

What is the problem, then? That manufacturers of CPEs are based on an old 
specification (RFC7084) that does not contemplate these transition mechanisms, 
so when a small/medium ISP asks a manufacturer for a firmware upgrade or a new 
CPE, they do not include that solution and perhaps they offer it with an extra 

In my view, this should change, and that is why I am working on a number of 
documents, including RFC7084-bis 
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis/), To update 
this situation, but there is opposition from large ISPs and virtually no 
small/medium "talks" about it, and in fact these large ISPs deny the situation. 
In addition, the document also specifies the "automated" support of those cases 
in which the user installs other routers (which is very common as we all know, 
and will be more and more in IPv6, IoT, etc.), behind the router installed by 
the ISP, through homenet (HNCP).

I am not asking for your support for my documents, but for understanding the 
problem and the solution that is being proposed and/or possible new ones, and 
for the opinion of not only those very few “big ones”, but also of many small 
and medium, who are most affected.

If you want to subscribe to this list, search for "subscribing" at:

You can see the files of the discussion in:

I remind you that participating in the IETF does not require a presence in the 
meetings, as consensus is agreed in the list.


IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the 
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that 
any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, including attached files, is prohibited.

Reply via email to