[Bp_ipv6] Looking for your thoughts - Section on End Users

Howard, Lee lee.howard at twcable.com
Sun Sep 20 19:15:32 EDT 2015



From: Bp_ipv6 <bp_ipv6-bounces at intgovforum.org<mailto:bp_ipv6-bounces at intgovforum.org>> on behalf of "Glenn Deen (NBCUniversal)" <glenn.deen at nbcuni.com<mailto:glenn.deen at nbcuni.com>>
Date: Saturday, September 19, 2015 at 11:28 AM
To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>>
Cc: "bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org<mailto:bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org>" <bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org<mailto:bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org>>
Subject: Re: [Bp_ipv6] Looking for your thoughts - Section on End Users

I agree with you.  It's not yet a differentiator that either consumers look for, or that manufactures highlight to consumers.   Though I do not think that consumers will seek advice from their ISP when they are buying a new TV or home printer, consumers expect whatever they but to just work regardless of their ISPs recommendations.

The home wifi product vendors have done a pretty good job at branding their devices, though with a lot of confusion at times by buyers.  They have distinguished in labeling their product for example as AC Wifi, so consumers are able to use it to choose between products in the store when buying a home Wifi router.

Perhaps, an extension to my point is the idea of marketers of connected consumer devices seeing and advertising IPv6 as a product differentiator.     We see this today with home Wifi devices, and with HDMI connections on TVs, audio devices, etc.,  and BlueTooth on consumer speakers, headsets etc.   IPv6 is unfortunately relegated to a footnote in the technical manual, if at all.

When I’ve talked with folks at CEA, they tell me that manufacturers groan and complain about yet another certification. It costs them money for each logo they want to put on the box, and they doubt that sales of a device with “IPv6” on the box will be any higher than one without.
Device manufacturers I’ve spoken with are happy to talk about why they need IPv6, and what features they need to support, but they consistently remind me that I’m an engineer, not a marketer.

Lee



Regards
-glenn

Sent from my iPad, please forgive any tpyos or auto connections

On Sep 19, 2015, at 4:46 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:


Hello Glenn,

You raised a got point about IP version identification. While IETF is rightly silent about this I think equipment producers has no limit on the level of promotion that they can do and I expect such buzz word like "v6 enabled" would be a good thing to provoke curiosity of some end users that care about such details.

That said, it's one thing to put such promotional words/logo on devices, it's another thing for it to have meaning to the buyer. At the moment, a typical end user just wants to be able to access his/her favourite services on the internet and so long as the device is tested to do that they would be fine. So while it's good to keep the end users informed and familiar with the need to have v6 enabled devices, I think one of the main catalyst that will ensure that is the Internet content/service providers; end users will naturally be informed about choice of device once/if there is value in v6 enabled content/services.

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.

On 17 Sep 2015 14:17, "Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)" <glenn.deen at nbcuni.com<mailto:glenn.deen at nbcuni.com>> wrote:
Most consumers aren't aware of IPv6, no surprise there as consumers also aren't aware of what QAM standard their TV uses, or other technical details about the technology they use everyday.   That's very likely never to change.

However for consumers that are aware it's very difficult to find, choose, and configure IPv6 supporting CE Devices.

First, just identifying which devices offer IPv6 support can be very difficult as their is no standard for labeling this feature.    Compare that to TV sets , Media players etc which carry industry logos to show they support things like DTS sound, HD,  BluRay,  MP3 etc.

These official industry logos also typically are backed by a certification program that the device must pass to earn the logo, which highlights the second problem consumers face: Does the product actually work with the standard, even when it claims support.  Certification is a common practice in the CE world, but historically is very haphazard or even absent with home networked devices.  The certification program is typically created or at least endorsed by the standards organization which created the spec.   The standards org is driven to create the labeling and testing program as part of promoting their standard in the marketplace.  This has not been the practice however with open standards from groups like the IETF which don't promote their standards, but let adopters choose to adopt and implement their standards on their own without IETF promotion.

I'm not trying to fault the IETF here, as promotion and verification of compliance with its standards is outside the IETF charter, especially for CE products.    Yet, this leaves certification compliance testing and promotional logo unavailable for IPv6 devices.   The consumer has to hope it works, or read reviews by others more technical than they are, and hope they understand the necessary details.

Even when consumers buy a device that has IPv6, and fully complies with IPv6 standards there remains the challenge of correctly configuring the device to use IPv6.   There are no interface standards for how configuration features are labeled in Setup screens, nor is there a standard or even best practice for how the device alerts the consumer that it is using IPv6 - for example  there isn't an IPv6 equivalent to the 4G LTE shown on cell phones.

There are policy considerations here related to consumer education, consumer protection, and truth in marketing.


Regards
Glenn
-----
Glenn Deen - NBCUniversal

Sent from my iPad, please forgive any tpyos or auto connections

On Sep 15, 2015, at 10:35 PM, Susan Chalmers <susan at chalmers.associates<mailto:susan at chalmers.associates>> wrote:

Greetings all,

We've provisionally included a section on End User Action in our draft.

Can I ask the list for their thoughts and expertise on this section?

What best practices, if any, are there for IPv6 adoption by end users?

How should this section be structured?

Should this section be included at all?

Many thanks everyone. I'm working on a calendar for the balance of our work. Your thoughts on this subject will assist that exercise.

Many thanks!

Cheers,
Susan

Susan Chalmers
susan at chalmers.associates<mailto:susan at chalmers.associates>

CHALMERS & ASSOCIATES
http://chalmers.associates
_______________________________________________
Bp_ipv6 mailing list
Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org>
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org

_______________________________________________
Bp_ipv6 mailing list
Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org>
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org


________________________________

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org/attachments/20150920/3fb054a1/attachment.html>


More information about the Bp_ipv6 mailing list