[LAC-TF] Fwd: Usage of services without IPv6 Support

[Fernando Gont]

FYI


-------- 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

Hello all

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 
SaaS services.
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 
forward ?

Best regards
Fernando