Re: Netflix banning HE tunnels

[Cryptographrix <cryptographrix () gmail com>]

(alternate solution: rename IPv6 to something media-friendlyish and request
ISPs to enable support for it, advertising that most of their hardware
"*already
supports it*")

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 2:58 PM Cryptographrix <cryptographrix () gmail com>
wrote:

> Just to clarify - there's no transition involved - IPv4 to IPv6 is like
> going from the VINES protocol to IPv6: IPv6 may as well have been called
> "PROTOCOL 493" - it bares very little relation to the original protocol
> that brought us the internet as-it-is-today.
>
> The deployment of IPv4 had nothing to do with other protocols and neither
> does IPv6 - EXCEPT for the fact that the use of the only
> (largely-available) "transition" method (SixXS and HE.net tunnels) is now
> coming face to face with media DRM, as media is taking over the internet.
>
> Sooo....WTF batman?
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 2:28 PM Ricky Beam <jfbeam () gmail com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 23:57:08 -0400, Randy Bush <randy () psg com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > zero interoperability, and no viable migration paths, it's a Forklift
> > > > > Upgrade(tm).
> > > >
> > > > You say that with such confidence! Doesn't make it true.
> > >
> > > https://archive.psg.com/120206.nanog-v4-life-extension.pdf
> > >
> > > randy, who works for the first isp to deploy ipv6 to customers
> >
> > Also, the Randy who closed the ngtrans working group "declar[ing] victory"
> > yet having produced nothing. Dual stack is not a transition plan, and
> > never has been. It's a key factor in why we have such a fractured adoption
> > today.
> >
> > If you've been completely ignoring IPv6 for 20 years, then it is indeed a
> > steep learning curve[*]. If you haven't been upgrading equipment, shame on
> > you! Otherwise, you've ended up with "IPv6 Capable(TM)" completely by
> > accident, but you still have to deploy IPv6. On the scale of a large
> > service provider (or enterprise, for that matter), that's not a trivial
> > process. While *I* could upgrade the tiny island of the multi-national
> > corp I work for [10 people, 1 (linux) router, 36 public facing networks]
> > overnight via a plan drawn on the back of cocktail napkin over a long
> > lunch, doing that over the entire global network is not going to happen
> > overnight; the other offices have much more involved infrastructure.
> >
> > I'd like to hear from the Comcast's, TWC's, and Uverse's just how many
> > man-hours were involved in the planning, testing, training, deployment,
> > and troubleshooting of their IPv6 "transition". (I have a ppt of the
> > Uverse 6rd plan. I cannot imagine that mere document was produced in lass
> > than a day, not counting the data behind all those slides.)
> >
> > [*] As I joked with a business partner recently as he had to learn "all
> > this crap about IPv6" for his CCIE recert, "you're a DoD contractor.
> > They've had an 'IPv6 Mandate' for decades. I still have the memo." That
> > mandate is for "IPv6 Capable"; they don't have any actual v6 anywhere.