[discuss] we need to fix what may be broken

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 05:19:09PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote:
>   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.

No, of course not.  I agree.  This is part of the reason I worked on
NAT64/DNS64, despite my distaste for such messes.  IPv6 deployment is
not where it ought to be.  But it's far ahead of where it ought to be.

> 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.

Even Skype seems to have figured out they need to do something about
this.  Among popular servers, this hasn't been an issue for some
years, though I bet we're about to discover load problems we didn't
know we had. 

> 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.

I recall a big flurry about IPv6 glue and so on in registries many
years ago.  I think ICANN actually did all of this already, and if
there are still registries operating who don't know about this (rather
than any that know and have decided they don't care), I think it'd be
through willful ignorance.

> 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?

What about BCPs for mail operations?  Web operations?  Routing?
Password handling on your network?  Pasword handling in your bank
site?  Your gmail account?  And so on.

The answer that I prefer to this, at least, is, "If you are a
competent operator, you will be on top of these issues and you'll be
looking after your users."  Many people who want to turn this into an
Internet governance discussion seem to think that answer is bad, but I
don't know how to have a permissionless-innovation Internet without
that answer.  There are some people, of course, who don't actually
_want_ permissionless innovation.  At that point, I just want to part
company with them: they're talking about some other network, and not
those I know as the Internet.

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

I think they shouldn't.  I think that's what it means to have a
network of networks.

> 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.

Well, there is one important difference.  I'm using Comcast at home,
and whatever else one might say about them, my IPv6 service just
works.  So what _I_ can do about climate change isn't something that
benefits anyone at all until almost everyone is doing something.  But
what I can do about IPv6 benefits me even if many others don't come
along with me.  I'll be able to talk to people over IPv6 and will be
ready for those new participants the day that they can only get IPv6
addresses.

Best regards,

A


-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com