[discuss] we need to fix what may be broken

[Barry Shein]

Preface:

I was hoping for more reaction to my comment (tho it hasn't been very
long):

  Do we all agree that if this IPv6 transition fails then everything
  else we are talking about here crumbles to dust?

I was not engaging in hyperbole.

On April 17, 2014 at 15:51 ajs at anvilwalrusden.com (Andrew Sullivan) wrote:
 > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 03:42:28PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote:
 > 
 > > Something I am always amazed by when I attend ICANN meetings (which is
 > > often) is how little attention seems to be given to the IPv6
 > > transition.
 > 
 > As I noted elsewhere in this thread, this is a plain economics
 > problem.  There are first-mover costs and few real direct advantages
 > to moving to IPv6 first, so until "everyone else" is on v6, why move
 > there?

Well, that's one practical problem one eventually confronts, but...

 > And as I suggested in that other message, there is something ICANN
 > could do, but it's probably not something people would be comfortable
 > with.  They could give out money as a subsidy to encourage v6 adoption.

Sure, bribery always focuses the mind.

But I can think of other approaches which might be more broadly
effective, more in the realm of education and publicity.

Those closer to the transition effort could probably name several
others such as reviewing widely used applications for IPv6
compatability and, where lacking, alerting developers and eventually
customers.

Also, govts, where they've transitioned services to the web are they
also IPv6 compatible? How about their ccTLD registries? Any problem
for example listing IPv6 DNS server addresses for customers? I don't
know, maybe that's all been done, just an example.

But whose job is it to stay on top of these sorts of issues and engage
people and organizations preferably more effectively than opening the
window and shouting?

I want names, not some vague hand wave (well, I don't particularly
want names but they should be available.)

---general remarks---

I suppose it's a bit like climate change (tho far more objectively
provable.) Most won't see any urgency until the water is up to their
ankles, at least, or some other immediate effect.

In the case of IPv6 transition a symptom might be when a local last
mile provider says sorry, no more installations, we have run out of
addresses!

  (yes, yes, CGN and all that, that's one widely used solution where
  implemented which is what we're talking about: Where implemented.)

Think of it like your telephone company running out of phone numbers.

Up until they allocate the very last one there's no obvious
problem.

Then the next person doesn't get a phone, nor the next million. Sorry,
try back next year!

But there's more to it than that because eventually services you try
to use will require IPv6. It's a two way street, more like not being
able to call the new batch of phone numbers.


 > Best regards,
 > 
 > A
 > 
 > -- 
 > Andrew Sullivan
 > ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
 > 
 > _______________________________________________
 > discuss mailing list
 > discuss at 1net.org
 > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
        -Barry Shein

The World              | bzs at TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*