So, time for some real action?

[Andrew 👽 Yourtchenko]

On 2/6/14, Phil Mayers <p.mayers at imperial.ac.uk> wrote:

>> That's exactly the idea. It's explicitly *NOT* to break others'
>> networks nor to have the innocent users suffer.
>
> Ok. But if you read the replies to the original email, it's clear a lot
> of people didn't get that. So there is a messaging problem here.
>

Upon rereading the text "all devices we use" might mean "servers" for
some. I added the clarification to make the intent more explicit, as
well as a "it goes without saying" post-scriptum at the end. Hopefully
this will make it more explicit that this is not a call to get the IT
professionals to go and gratuitously cut off the wires off the live
servers.

>
>> If you are talking about the original wording on the AVAAZ - I'd be
>> very happy to hear better wording, feel free to unicast.
>
> My problem is entirely with the work point. Denying yourself online
> shopping and facebook is just that - self-denial. Though a really brave
> option would be to do that *permanently*, and let the retailers know why
> you're *never* shopping with them until they're v6-ready.

To start with it, we'd need at least one retailer that *does* support IPv6.

Are there any at all ?

If not - then one would need to create a large enough group that would
express this as a single entity - if it were to get big enough, it
might make it interesting for some retailer to cater to this group.

>
> Denying yourself the ability to work *in the field you're trying to
> affect change* seems futile.
>
> It would be better to go to work, try and work with IPv4 disabled, make
> a note of everything that didn't work, then commit to fixing it all
> before the same time next year. That's both far harder, and far more
> productive, than throwing your hands in the air and saying "nothing
> works without IPv4" - which is not a surprising conclusion ;o)

I thought about it a lot at the time of writing that sentence and
indeed my first reaction was to write pretty much exactly what you
suggest. It's great, challenge and all, and it works - if the
professional in question is in direct authority to change the
situation. But if they aren't - what can they do ?

What I ended up with seemed like the least unreasonable idea for a
lowest common denominator.

But I am very open to another not-too-unreasonable idea that is achievable.

Making it "harder" is not a desirable property, though.

Maybe transforming this into a "taking a day off and using this time
to educate the others and help them with their IPv6 deployment" could
be a better option ?

Take a day off because you can't do work without IPv6 and then use
this time to configure an IPv6-only SSID with NAT64 on a network where
you *do* have control (may be still a different segment at work, or
maybe your home network) or test a couple of apps and submit bug
reports  - how does this sound ?

>
>>> IMHO effort at this point would be best directed to the large, holdout
>>> broadband providers in countries with low uptake (e.g. BT in the UK).
>>>
>>
>> What would that effort consist of ?
>
> That is an excellent question which I am not well equipped to answer. If
> there is anyone on the list with insight in the UK broadband market, and
> any workable suggestions and/or hopeful news, I'd love to hear it.
>

The next IETF is by a coincidence in London in just a few weeks. Might
be interesting to pop by and ask this question during the plenary and
see if any ideas emerge. :-)

--a