Looking for comments

[Martin Millnert]

Hi Fred,

On Tue, 2010-07-20 at 16:02 -0700, Fred Baker wrote:
> Hi
> 
> IETF IPv6 Operations WG is looking at this draft, and we're interested
in any comments you might have as well.
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines
>   "Guidelines for Using IPv6 Transition Mechanisms", Jari Arkko, Fred
>   Baker, 12-Jul-10
> 


I have a comment for Jari on the document (that I kindly ask not to be
turned into a very long and irrelevant thread :-) by the list):

Is it wise to either comment, or not comment on, the "short-term"
non-IPv6 readiness of residential users either privately bought, or ISP
shipped, nat44-CPEs? This has an to me unknown impact on the IPv6
transition of the Internet as a whole.
 
On one hand, when a residential customer is using something privately
managed, the device is by some measure outside the control of its ISP.
Since it is, perhaps it is then also, by some (monetary) logic, clear
that the ISP should not concern itself further.

On the other hand, this *could* amount to a sizeable number of nodes,
whose continued brokeness can have a detrimental effect on the speed of
the IPv6 transition as a whole.  Either improving or denying brokeness
to leave the ISP could then be helpful.

I don't have any real useful data myself.  Not sure how to passively
sniff that out with any accuracy here, but haven't given it any thought
either. 
  Clearly many networks are still of the opinion that there is too much
brokeness out there.

Cheers,
-- 
Martin Millnert <martin at millnert.se>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20100721/80b94607/attachment.bin