[LAC-TF] Fwd: Usage of services without IPv6 Support
fgont at si6networks.com
Sat Apr 18 22:59:41 GMT+3 2020
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Usage of services without IPv6 Support
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2020 00:10:43 -0300
From: Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>
To: ietf at ietf.org
I want to call attention to a open wound. Some people may feel
uncomfortable about the content of this email but I can assure I come
with good intentions.
Recently I got to know that a 6man meeting ironically was conducted via
Webex Videoconferencing tool which does not have IPv6 support. Other
tools used by IETF like GitHub also don't have and in this case is even
worst because there are several alternatives with IPv6 support as
GitLab, Bitbucket or even a self-hosted option.
I want to talk about some points like value and productivity.
How can IETF that standardizes IPv6 can accept keep using any SaaS
products that don't yet have IPv6 support ? How is it not prepared to
eat its own dog food ? Even if the service is given for free it should
be refused as in my view IETF should always give the example worldwide
and say: "We thank your offer, but it is more important to us give the
example about our fundamental building blocks."
Some other questions that are worth put are: "Does it really have to be
*that* specific tool that doesn't have IPv6 support, or could we live
without this and that specific feature and at the end of the day doing
that same work we intended to ?"
I feel sometimes people are too stick to certain tools that are not
prepared to let them go, even above values. Some may have a endless
to-do list and just want to get things out of their way without much
consideration to these points. Both in my view are bad.
I do understand that sometimes it is difficult to find a proper tool
that will do the job, but unless we are talking about something rare or
unique and in that case *really* there is no other choice, I believe
more effort should to be put into using tools that support IPv6. Perhaps
even an in-house hosted solution should be considered. They may not have
all the features but may be able to do the job until some SaaS can feel
incentivized to get proper IPv6 support and differentiate themselves.
If we were talking about a private company perhaps this could be more
loose, but we are talking about IETF. Values should always prevail and
give the example about IPv6 usage should always be among the list of
Priorities number 0.
Over the years I see companies giving all sort of excuses about not
having IPv6 on their products. "This plugin"," that component that
doesn't have it", "Nobody asked for yet" (this is the worst), "My
provider which uses component XPTO has promised me that for next year",
etc. Very little are dispose to change suppliers to try get things
working and helping give the example. I even guess that sometimes this
may be a reliever to some people so they always have an excuse on the
pocket. Believe it or not but we are in 2020 and there are new products
coming out to production without proper IPv6 support, including and
mainly SaaS products. How come this can be considered a normal thing at
current times ?
Sometimes I hear from people: "Well, it has passed 20 years and we still
have trouble with IPv6 deployments". Of course we do, people a unwilling
to change even small bits of their way of doing things, get out of their
comfort zones and start to require IPv6 as mandatory to providers and
And even when IETF doesn't give the example how are we suppose to ask
people to do the right thing about it and for the survival of the
Internet for the next decades ?
Shall we do the right thing and put values above other priorities going
More information about the LACTF