[ipv6-wg] [official] What Shall This WG Do

Hi Jen and group,

* Jen Linkova <furry13 at gmail.com> [191005 04:20]:
> As a co-chair I'm excited to see some discussion happening here,
> especially after the list has been quiet for a while. I'm less excited
> to see that some people have started giving up hope and telling the
> rest of use we shall give up to..

well, we all have our dark moments, I guess. At least it worked to kick
off some lively discussions.

> By a lucky coincidence we have 10 mins open-mic slot during IPv6 WG
> session in Rotterdam to discuss what the WG is doing and what we, as a
> community, want it to do (however after reading all those threads I'm
> afraid 10 mins might not be enough).

I guess some of the discussions will be moved to the hall track :-)

> What I'd like to ask you meantime is to think what the priorities and goals are.
> Get IPv6 adoption to 100%? (Is it realistic? Shall we target to 100%?)
> Convince everyone that IPv6 is good and IPv4 shall be turned off?
> Provide a venue for those who are interested to discuss the topic and
> share the experience (including negative one? Produce documents (or
> recommendations?) Educate people?
> What should be considered as success, what is the failure and what is
> just a roadblock?

I see two groups of people we should work with:

a) Newcomers and small LIRs who find it difficult to grow or even get
off the ground because IPv4 addresses are hard to get. And even if there
are some on the market, many of them will be barely usable because they
have been used by dedicated spam or malware hosters in the past. Looking
at my blacklists this appears to be the case e.g. for a significant percentage
of 185/8, which I expect are the blocks that will get on the market in
the near future.
This group will not be able to build a full dual stack network but
will have a few outward facing systems with globally routable IPv4
addresses (or better dual-stack) and will have to use either IPv6-only
or private IPv4 space (or both) internally. The working group should
provide guidance, best practices and examples of successful deployments
(including the problems encountered and solved) for the IPv6 based
solutions.

b) Established LIRs that never thought of doing anything with IPv6
because they have more than enough available IPv4 space for their
use.
This group will have the problem that they are badly reachable from
an ever growing part of the internet, which would be group a)
They might not even notice at first while group a) is still small,
and because group a) will provide adaption mechanisms on their side,
but give it a couple of years and the problem will grow big enough
to hurt. The working group should provide group b) with guidance how
to make at least their outward facing services available on dual stack.

Wolfgang