[137089] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 - a noobs prespective
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Herrin)
Wed Feb 9 13:03:26 2011
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=Dska-0YoDLdVg_Q-4JmXK=x821EgOFHOy8ap+@mail.gmail.com>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 13:03:01 -0500
To: Robert Lusby <nanogwp@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Robert Lusby <nanogwp@gmail.com> wrote:
> I also get why we need IPv6, that it means removing the NAT (which, surpr=
ise
> surprise also runs our Firewall), and I that I might need new kit for it.
>
> I am however *terrified* of making that move. There is so many new phrase=
s,
> words, things to think about etc
The thing that terrifies me about deploying IPv6 is that apps
compatible with both are programmed to attempt IPv6 before IPv4. This
means my first not-quite-correct IPv6 deployments are going to break
my apps that are used to not having and therefore not trying IPv6. But
that's not the worst part... as the folks my customers interact with
over the next couple of years make their first not-quite-correct IPv6
deployments, my access to them is going to break again. And again. And
again. And I won't have the foggiest idea who's next until I get the
call that such-and-such isn't working right.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--=20
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com=A0 bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
