[members-discuss] About IPv6 tunnels and other incentives

As I said; I agree tunnels are bad. But inaccessible resources are worse.
I also agree that end users shouldn't care about which version of IP they
are using, but that is idealism, this is reality; You have to prioritise
availability of services over quality and speed of connection. Have you
considered 464xlat, rather than the other way around? When I mention
tunnels it is with the explicit intent that they should only be used by
end-users to solve resource availability during this transition period. In
which case I'm in strong preference of 464xlat to support legacy end-user's
devices otherwise end-user's legacy devices will be effectively useless. -
These are the same end-users that we all agree shouldn't care about which
IP version they are using. If we force deprecation of their devices then we
are effectively saying that they should care about which version of IP they
are using.

Again, I'm not saying tunnels are a good thing, but in a few edge cases
they are unavoidable and a solution needs to be provided for those affected.


As for lobbying large content providers to rate limit IPv4 or only offer
some features over IPv6, I'm all for it! But I wont support the idea of
paying them to do so: First because this would be a breach of
net-neutrality, and Secondly if they want to be paid to do it I don't think
we could afford their price (Netflix's yearly revenue is approximately 314
times RIPE NCC's yearly revenue).

-Tim

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Anthony Somerset <
anthony.somerset at cloudunboxed.net> wrote:

> This sounds like the perfect idea though
>
> Lobby the main providers/generators of Internet Bandwidth usage to only
> support IPv6 on new tech/products - even if only for initial launch phases.
>
> For example Netflix is starting to do UHD/4k, wouldn’t it be great if we
> could get them and google and others to only offer 4k/UHD on V6 only for a
> period of time like 3-6 months or even longer.
>
> The main challenge which makes this a long shot is that you need all of
> the major content providers to do it together otherwise none of them will
> because the consumer is so fickle, they will just switch in a heartbeat
>
> Anthony Somerset,
> Technical Director,
>
> [image: Cloud Unboxed Limited]
>
> *w:* cloudunboxed.net <http://www.cloudunboxed.net> | *e: * anth
> ony.somerset at cloudunboxed.net | *t:* +44 (0)33 0088 2444
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>
> *This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended for the
> addressed individual or entity only. If you have received this e-mail in
> error, please notify the sender immediately and then discard this e-mail.
> Unauthorized copying, sharing and distributing of this e-mail is
> prohibited. The content in this e-mail does not necessarily represent the
> views of the company. The addressee should check all attachments for
> malware; the company makes no representation as regards the absence of
> malware in attachments to this e-mail.*
>
> On 23 Sep,2016, at 10:16, Tom Lehtinen <ripe at tombii.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 23.09.2016 10:08, Ondřej Caletka wrote:
>
> On 22.9.2016 v 23:07 Carlos Friacas wrote:
>
> Tunnels? seriously? no, please...
> End-users shouldn't care about which IP version they are using.
>
> +1
>
> +1
>
> [snip]
> Maybe a better idea would be to create a fund for financial support of
> IPv6 deployments of providers, especially the big ones. Because most of
> them have no real technical problems, they just deliberately postpone
> the IPv6 adoption unless inevitable. The main idea is the later they
> deploy it, the less money it would cost. They don't have any actual need
> to deploy it, unless, say, YouTube stops playing HD videos to IPv4
> clients. (That would be cool, actually.)
> I'm fully aware that any such support will be unfair to all those that
> already used their own money to deploy IPv6. But on the other hand,
> deploying IPv6 at big providers is in the interest of the RIPE community
> as a whole.
>
> I'd rather give the money to Google and other large content providers and
> ask them to stop supporting IPv4. Then let the big telcos deploy IPv6
> because finally they will have to unless they want to lose all their
> customers. Not saying that this is a good idea though...
>
> Regards,
> Tom
>
> Best Regards,
> Ondřej Caletka
> CESNET
> ----
> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss
> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the
> general page:
> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From
> here, you can add or remove addresses.
>
>
> ----
> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss
> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the
> general page:
> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
>
> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From
> here, you can add or remove addresses.
>
>
>
> ----
> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss
> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the
> general page:
> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
>
> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From
> here, you can add or remove addresses.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20160923/ac14db6c/attachment.html>