[afripv6-discuss] FW: [ipv6-members] Fwd: Is the Transition toIPv6 a "Market Failure?"

[Latif LADID ("The New Internet based on IPv6")]

Thanks for the sanity check, Mark!

This is what folks at the Ministries of Communications in Africa should be
made aware of, copied Sami.

We need to extend the ML list to all stakeholders to be involved to make
them aware of the real issues and cut down FUD.

It is not a walk in the park, for Africa, it will be a walk in the desert.

That's why we need to cut down the politics that have become a new barrier
to the proper spread of the Internet in this part of the world, the last
place to prosper.
 
Africa is mis-used again for a political agenda that is not theirs.

Cheers
Latif  

-----Original Message-----
From: afripv6-discuss-bounces at afrinic.net
[mailto:afripv6-discuss-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf Of Mark Tinka
Sent: 28 June 2010 08:43
To: afripv6-discuss at afrinic.net; kondwa at m-hi.org
Subject: Re: [afripv6-discuss] FW: [ipv6-members] Fwd: Is the Transition
toIPv6 a "Market Failure?"

On Monday 28 June 2010 02:19:11 pm kondwa at m-hi.org wrote:

> I am wondering where the issue of cost comes in. Most  hardware 
> nowadays is already implemented with ipv6.

But the problem is that most hardware "already in production" is working
fine for today's technology, and may need an upgrade to support v6.

It rests on the vendors and the operators on whether they prefer to add
support in the existing boxes (good for operators, hardware/software
limitations notwithstanding) or have the operators install newer platforms
that come with v6 natively (good for the vendors, they sell more boxes).

Both sides are still playing chicken, unfortunately. But, progress will be
made. There's only one way to the fire :-).

>  Information on how to migrate is available all over.
>  According to this:
> 
> http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/it-pros-take-ipv6-migr
> ation-their-own-hands/2010-06-01

There's a lot of presentations and documents online about how many folk have
already done it. In some parts of the network, it's fairly easy, e.g., the
core. In other parts, not so, e.g., broadband access.

So deployment toolkits will not cover all areas. There's still a lot of
gotchas to be had depending on what your deployment is, e.g., look at
options for the Enterprise LAN and see just how silly things have become,
with SLAAC vs. 
DHCPv6 and all that.

> Some IT Pros are already implementing it in their home  networks.

But most end users aren't IT pros. And as it were, they don't need to be. If
they were, half our problems would be solved :-).

But let's keep it real...

>  Organisation fail to implement it because of  unjustified costs.

Each organization needs to assess any costs related its deployment of v6.
However, the truth remains - at some point, if they want to remain connected
to the Internet in the future, they will need to deploy v6.

> Organisations already have IT departments to do these  changes. As I 
> have already said hardware already has it  enabled. Where then would 
> the cost come from?

Back-porting it to existing hardware. Back-porting it to existing software.
Training of IT staff, upgrading existing systems (and their associated
service interruption costs), upgrading back-end systems, provisioning
systems, monitoring systems, e.t.c.

There's a lot more to it than just "turning it on", especially for
operations running at scale. But the task force Hisham is trying to put
together will help bring these issues to light, and hopefully, get them
addressed globally enough that individual businesses and users can adapt
those principals to their unique situations.

> I think we might as well go on deploy and at any level  organisation 
> or ISP. With dual stack and/or tunnelling  technics available.

Yes, that is the spirit. Go out, do it, feel the pain, fix the issue, gain
the experience.

But, it's not a walk-in-the-park for everyone. Some organizations will have
a harder time deploying it than others.

Make no mistake, though, v6 is the only solution.

Mark.