Hi,
>> ... when the support people for a fairly well-established telco
>> haven't even heard of IPv6, it's hard to believe that it's going
>> to be available anytime soon.
>> [multiple people essentially reporting the same]
>> At this point in time $ISP has no immediate plans for implementation.
>
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
> The bottom line: unless I am force to support IPv6, stack or no stack, the
> investment required isn't going to happen soon.
You got an options now, how, when and where you want to go with IPv6,
wait a few years until all you communicate wi
Unless you are elevated to higher level networking people who are
normally not part of the support process, what 1st/2nd support feeds
end-users should be taken very lightly.
This is all very simple - economics. Its not just about end-users,
but major operations who are IPv4 dependent and as
Total of 129 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Jun 10 00:53:02 EDT 2011
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
17.05% | 22 | 29.39% | 331489 | mo...@network-heretics.com
3.10% |4 | 6.83% |77083 | wesley
> Keith Moore wrote:
> ... when the support people for a fairly well-established telco
> haven't even heard of IPv6, it's hard to believe that it's going
> to be available anytime soon.
> [multiple people essentially reporting the same]
> At this point in time $ISP has no immediate plans for imple
Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message "Randy Presuhn" writes:
> >
> > We can't compel people to continue supporting it any more than we can
> > make them stop. At most, we can give them (hopefully convincing) reasons
> > to change. If the SNMP experience shows anything, it shows that even
> > that
In message <000901cc270d$430ec000$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>, "Randy Presuhn" writes
:
> We can't compel people to continue supporting it any more than we can
> make them stop. At most, we can give them (hopefully convincing) reasons
> to change. If the SNMP experience shows anything, it shows that e
james woodyatt wrote:
> I need *native* IPv6 into my home in San Francisco for my day job,
Really?
I wonder why some people are arguing against to kill 6to4 along
with IPv6.
Masataka Ohta
___
Ietf mailin
Hi -
> From: "Keith Moore"
> To: "Randy Presuhn"
> Cc:
> Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 5:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call:
...
> > Consider, then, RFC 1157.
> >
> > It was, quite rightly, declared historic years ago, even though it
> > was a full standard and in rather widespread use at
And from Optus a similar response to a recent request.
Subject IPv6 support
Â
Discussion Thread Response Via Email (Russell)
07/02/2011 02.04 PM
Dear Mark,
Thank you for your email.
IPv6 deployment within Optus has not been broadly discussed.
At this point in time Optus has no immediate plan
On Jun 9, 2011, at 1:30 PM, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>>> I'm pretty sure Noel was being scarcastic. There's clear precedent in the
>>> analogous case where RFC 1227 was declared historic, despite its
>>> widespread use for that particular application at the time.
>>
>> RFC 1227 specified an experim
You folks have had it easy in your interactions with ISPs. When I tried not too
long ago with various ISPs in my area, I was unable to reach anyone at either
of the big ISPs who knew what "IPv6" even meant. Both promised callbacks,
neither did.
The more interesting response was from a small ISP. T
Gert Doering wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 11:05:29AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> > The best way to not rat-hole is just to drop the proposed action.
>
> One voice doesn't make it "consensus to drop".
In the IETF, that is supposed to be possible.
A single technical or procedural issue th
I agree the draft should be progressed, so add another +1 to the 'just ship it'
people.
On 9 Jun 2011, at 18:39, Keith Moore wrote:
> If pain associated with 6to4 provides an additional incentive for ISPs to
> deploy native v6, and for users to use native v6 when it becomes available,
> that's
Hi Lorenzo,
On 2011-06-10 06:20, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Keith Moore
> wrote:
>
>> So the existence of 6to4 is in itself a significant barrier for IPv6
>> deployment for server operators and content providers.
>>
>> non sequitur. Existing server operators and
On Jun 9, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> [...] But when the support people for a fairly well-established telco haven't
> even heard of IPv6, it's hard to believe that it's going to be available
> anytime soon.
I have another anecdote to relate.
When I contacted the support staff at
On Jun 9, 2011, at 2:45 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Keith Moore
> wrote:
> I suppose we should just tunnel the whole IPv6 network over IPv4 + HTTP then.
>
> Seriously, the argument that 6to4 should be trashed because ISPs are blocking
> tunnels has the flavor
On Jun 9, 2011, at 2:20 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Keith Moore
> wrote:
>> So the existence of 6to4 is in itself a significant barrier for IPv6
>> deployment for server operators and content providers.
> non sequitur. Existing server operators and content pr
I just called my ISP to ask about availability of IPv6 at my home.
Me: "I'm a current customer, and I'm just calling to ask if you support
Internet Protocol Version 6."
First person: "Yes, we do support Internet. We support DSL at 3 megabits and 6
megabits."
Me: "I understand that, but I'm a
On Jun 9, 2011, at 7:37 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> Clearly the intent of this draft and protocol action are to discourage use
> of 6to4, particularly in new implementations. You can't discourage use of
> 6to4 in new implementations without harming people who are already using it
> and dependi
On Jun 9, 2011, at 1:42 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Keith Moore
> wrote:
> Indeed, that is one of its main virtues. 6to4 decouples application
> deployment of v6 from network deployment of v6, and helps reduce the "chicken
> or egg" problem.
>
> No, it does
Hi -
> From: "TJ"
> To: "Randy Presuhn"
> Cc:
> Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 10:36 AM
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call:
...
> > The point is that the "historic" declaration can be a statement
> > about how the IETF wants things to be, rather than how they are.
> > If one happens to be a user
On Jun 9, 2011, at 12:01 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
> Arguably, transitions technologies like 6to4 and Teredo have already achieved
> their purpose. My goal at the time, more than 10 years ago, was to break the
> "chicken and egg" deadlock between application developers and network
> administ
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 13:30, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> Hi -
>
> > From: "Rémi Després"
> > To: "Randy Presuhn"
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 1:11 AM
> > Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call:
>
> ...
> > > I'm pretty sure Noel was being scarcastic. There's clear precedent in
> the
> > > an
On Jun 9, 2011, at 12:17 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> I don't have a problem with the idea that an Informational document can
>> describe the consequences of moving something to Historic. I have a serious
>> problem with the idea that a standards-track document can be moved off of
>> the standar
Hi -
> From: "Rémi Després"
> To: "Randy Presuhn"
> Cc:
> Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 1:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call:
...
> > I'm pretty sure Noel was being scarcastic. There's clear precedent in the
> > analogous case where RFC 1227 was declared historic, despite its
> > widespr
> On 2011-06-10 03:18, Philip Homburg wrote:
> ...
>> I think this is likely to happen anyway. In all discussions it has been come
>> clear that 6to4 has nothing to offer for ordinary users,
>
> In all fairness, that depends on your definition of "ordinary".
> Where I differ from Keith is that I
Philip,
On 2011-06-10 03:18, Philip Homburg wrote:
...
> I think this is likely to happen anyway. In all discussions it has been come
> clear that 6to4 has nothing to offer for ordinary users,
In all fairness, that depends on your definition of "ordinary".
Where I differ from Keith is that I don
In your letter dated Thu, 9 Jun 2011 10:37:56 -0400 you wrote:
>I have also seen those claims in v6ops email (haven't caught up with all of it
>, but have seen a few messages). I don't buy the argument. Clearly the inten
>t of this draft and protocol action are to discourage use of 6to4, particul
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 11:05:29AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> The best way to not rat-hole is just to drop the proposed action.
One voice doesn't make it "consensus to drop".
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
did you enable IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG
Its 'rough' consensus...
I don't wanna rat-hole here, but imho send the draft onwards for
publication asap please.
G/
-Original Message-
From: v6ops-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Keith Moore
Sent: 09 June 2011 16:38
To: james woodyatt
Cc: v6...@ietf.org WG;
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 04:20:44PM -0700, james woodyatt wrote:
> Publish it. Publish it now. Let its authors be free to pursue more useful
> ends than defending it.
Well said. +1
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
did you enable IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG
Thanks for the response! Comments below, eliding the bits I think need no
further comment.
On Jun 8, 2011, at 12:11 PM, Scott Rose wrote:
> Perhaps the document should only update RFC 2672 instead of obsoleting it?
That would resolve my concern, if it fits with the intent of the work group.
I don't intend to re-spin the discussion that took place in the WG, but I'd
like to say I do agree with the concerns raised in the LC threads by Keith and
others.
If there are 6to4 connectivity issues for some 6to4 clients, in my opinion,
those issues would be sufficiently mitigated by RFC 348
From: Keith Moore [mailto:mo...@network-heretics.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 6:48 PM
To: George, Wesley
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; v6...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call:
(Request to move Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds (6to4) to Historic
status) to Informational RFC
KM>I've be
Perhaps the document should only update RFC 2672 instead of obsoleting it?
As for the nits:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
-- IDNits has some comments, please check.
> -- Abstract: "This is a revision of the original specification in RFC
Perhaps the document should only update RFC 2672 instead of obsoleting it?
As for the nits:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
-- IDNits has some comments, please check.
> -- Abstract: "This is a revision of the original specification in RFC
> From: Keith Moore
> Nor do I understand why, in an organization that is supposedly about
> building consensus, there's such a demand for a divisive ... action.
Hey, that's been the IPv6 world since day 1. How many leading technical voices
in the community objected vociferoursly to
On Jun 9, 2011, at 8:50 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
>
>>> - the criteria for standards track actions (which this is, despite the
>>> document being labeled as Informational) requires both rough consensus and
>>> technical soundness.
>>
>> Informational status was at the behest of the iesg, we have
Arguably, transitions technologies like 6to4 and Teredo have already achieved
their purpose. My goal at the time, more than 10 years ago, was to break the
"chicken and egg" deadlock between application developers and network
administrators. That's why I spent such energy on making 6to4 easy to d
On Jun 9, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
> I will claim our goal is native IPv6 along IPv4, and in the long run, IPv6
> only.
> We don't need more tunneling of IPv6 over IPv4, that was okay 10years
> ago, maybe even 5 or 3 years ago.
> Now it is time to actual do the right thing and sa
On Jun 9, 2011, at 11:19 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> If you disagree the wg chairs conclusions as far as the wg process outcome
> and the document shepherds report which can you can find here:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic/history/
> Then you should conside
On Jun 9, 2011, at 11:18 AM, Philip Homburg wrote:
> In your letter dated Thu, 9 Jun 2011 10:37:56 -0400 you wrote:
>> I have also seen those claims in v6ops email (haven't caught up with all of
>> it
>> , but have seen a few messages). I don't buy the argument. Clearly the
>> inten
>> t of th
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> On Jun 9, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) wrote:
>> Its 'rough' consensus...
>> I don't wanna rat-hole here, but imho send the draft onwards for
>> publication asap please.
>
> I'm not even sure it's rough consensus within the
On Jun 9, 2011, at 8:05 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
> On Jun 9, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) wrote:
>
>> Its 'rough' consensus...
>> I don't wanna rat-hole here, but imho send the draft onwards for
>> publication asap please.
>
> I'm not even sure it's rough consensus within the
On Jun 9, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) wrote:
> Its 'rough' consensus...
> I don't wanna rat-hole here, but imho send the draft onwards for
> publication asap please.
I'm not even sure it's rough consensus within the v6ops group. Again, haven't
read all of the messages, but
On Jun 8, 2011, at 7:20 PM, james woodyatt wrote:
> On Jun 8, 2011, at 2:32 PM, Dmitry Anipko wrote:
>>
>> [...] And it unclear to me why IETF would want to take away a _transition_
>> technique from people for whom it is working...
>
> Let's be very clear. This proposed RFC would not "take aw
On Jun 9, 2011, at 4:03 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <19fb0bb1-9048-476a-a901-67f962a11...@network-heretics.com>, Keith
> M
> oore writes:
>> On Jun 8, 2011, at 11:35 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>
>>> Have broken 6to4 relays is *good* for the long term health of the
>>> Internet. Applicati
In message <19fb0bb1-9048-476a-a901-67f962a11...@network-heretics.com>, Keith M
oore writes:
> On Jun 8, 2011, at 11:35 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > Have broken 6to4 relays is *good* for the long term health of the
> > Internet. Applications should cope well with one address of a
> > multi-home
49 matches
Mail list logo
