[ipv6-wg] A Modest IPv6-wg Proposal

David,

On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 08:47 -0700, David Kessens wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 05:04:10PM +0200, Shane Kerr wrote:
> > 
> > Since the last RIPE meeting there have been messages from the RIPE NCC
> > about their IPv6ActNow stuff and a survey, and some messages about the
> > minutes. The only thread with any content has been one about IPv6
> > minimum allocation sizes (thanks Marco!).
> > 
> > This is not much.
> > 
> > Since this group isn't actually doing anything, I propose we:
> > 
> >      1. Shut down this working group after the next RIPE meeting.
> >      2. Move discussion of IPv6 issues to other working groups (since
> >         "IPv6 issues" will become "IP issues" very soon anyway).
> 
> You clearly have not read the minutes and/or have been at any of the  
> meetings as we have run out of time every single meeting in the past
> few years and we needed the largest meeting room available.

On the contrary, I have been at most of the RIPE meetings in the last
few years, and read most of the minutes.


I think you are making a common mistake of management, which is you are
confusing cost with benefit. This confusion is natural, because cost is
often relatively easy to measure, compared to benefit.

The time spent in meetings talking about IPv6 is a cost. I don't
disagree that there have been rooms full of IPv6 advocates or people who
want to learn about IPv6, talking for hours and hours. What I am unsure
of is the actual benefit of this activity. The suggestion to close the
working group is partially an observation that this discussion between
IPv6-aware people actually works AGAINST the idea of IPv6 adoption.


I had a look at the charter for this working group:

        The IPv6 working group follows the progress of specification and
        implementation of the new IP version. It coordinates
        implementations in Europe and is going to create testbeds.

Based on that I guess the working group is at least partially
successful. I see lots of "following", although not much "coordinating"
and certainly no testbeds.

Perhaps it is time to move beyond the traditional administrative and
technical co-ordination of RIPE and begin shameless advocacy. Widespread
IPv6 adoption is in the best interests of everyone.


I am sure we can think of a lot of ways that RIPE can use its unique
position to improve IPv6 adoption. The discussion about vendors saying
"no demand" is a good point. Things like petitions signed by a huge
number of ISPs in Europe may have an effect. It may also be possible to
encourage governments in the RIPE region to insist on IPv6 for new
purchases. I doubt there would be a shortage of ideas if people were
asked for them.

However, none of that seems to be happening now. If it is, it is
happening "off-camera", certainly not on the mailing list. Maybe that is
okay, given the working group seems to be chartered to merely keep track
of what is going on. But honestly, I don't see the point. Surely we can
find something better to do with our time than see another chart showing
IPv6 traffic rise 20% (*)?


As Gert noted, IPv6 discussion should naturally move to wider forums. I
actually quite like his idea of having an IPv4 working group - or
perhaps we should call it the Post-Exhaustion Working Group.

> In any case, are you coming to the next RIPE meeting so that I can put
> this on the agenda and you can propose this to the working group ?

I guess I'm a little confused. I thought I already did propose this to
the working group? :) In any case I'll be at the next RIPE meeting, and
will be happy to discuss this there.

--
Shane

(*) From 0.000012% to 0.000014% I mean. ;)