Re: Automatic tunnels

["Piotr Zurawski" <P.Zurawski@crowley.pl>]

In my company, not supporting the IPv6 was the first reason to make
problems with the deployment.
But I see it as a deeper thing: IPv4 services are managable through
network management systems. For the ATM network you can tune up many
parameters to optimize IP traffic and/or other services. If you add a
new protocol, which cannot be managed via the same interface, this
messes up the things:there are not many people with knowledge how to
solve the problems with tunneled IPv6 and even how to find them. Another
point is that nobody will guarantee, that the service will be working
properly. For IPv4 our hardware vendor gives us the support. For IPv6
we're on our own. Most of us here are technical persons (as far as I see
it). It's not a problem for techies to solve the things - we're just in
it.
This looks completely different from managements' point of view: IPv6
comes as a new service, without any guarantees (we offer SLA for all
type of services being offered, you'd have to cross IPv6 from your SLA
portfolio then - it won't look good). To deploy IPv6 you'll need to
train people and any human resource rotation will cause more problems
(more things to be learnt). Still, since nearly noone *REQUIRES* IPv6
connectivity to be done, it does not come as a priority to be deployed.
For management, more important is to improve the services already
existing. The reason, that would vitally speed up the global deployment
would be the deadline. This is not based on what US DoD done (but it's a
good example how to speed it up). From my experience, if management does
not see the deadline, the current affairs (having deadline and precise
effects) will be considered to be done.

I didn't wanted to feed up the troll. That's just how it looks in few
ISPs in Poland I know.

Best Regards,

Piotr
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
To: <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 8:33 AM
Subject: Re: Automatic tunnels


> I don't think most of the ISPs will do it with just a PC. Most of them
still don't believe in IPv6, so is just a good excuse for
> them (they will tell you that is still not well supported by the
router vendors). Most of the cost anyway is training the people and
> maintaining the service (including the customers hot line).
>
> Its clear, how many TBs exist around the world versus ISPs ?
>
> But may be there are other reasons that I didn't cached ?
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <itojun@iijlab.net>
> To: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
> Cc: <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 6:43 AM
> Subject: Re: Automatic tunnels
>
>
> > >The problem is that I don't think most of the ISPs will invest in
> > >offering tunnel services, because they will cost almost the same
> > >as providing native service, with the only difference of the
customer
> > >CPE and the BAS in case of xDSL or similar services. May be some
> > >will start with tunnels until they upgrade their BAS, and then will
> > >ask their customers to pay an additional fee for moving to a native
> > >service. Is a possible business model, but as said, who knows.
> >
> > we at IIJ use PC with BSD operating system for terminating our
> > tunnelling service customers.  required investment is minimal, and 1
> > PC can terminate > 10000 tunnels if you want to (we don't do 10000,
> > but freenet6 does it).  it is an added value to our IPv4 service (it
> > will look more tasty).  other japanese ISPs are doing similar
things.
> > so i guess i disagree with you on "most of the ISPs won't invest on
> > tunnel service".
> >
> > itojun
> >
>
> *****************************
> Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
> Presentations and videos on-line at:
> http://www.ipv6-es.com
>
>
>
>