[137157] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 - a noobs prespective
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Feb 9 17:19:31 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimNwxkB0xZ-OKP44DXKvfLHedwV8K3pEX4yawQx@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 14:16:26 -0800
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 9, 2011, at 10:03 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> 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, =
surprise
>> surprise also runs our Firewall), and I that I might need new kit for =
it.
>>=20
>> I am however *terrified* of making that move. There is so many new =
phrases,
>> words, things to think about etc
>=20
> 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.
Cower in fear and wait for the world to pass you by, or, move forward
and get past it.
The choice is yours.
So far, I've had pretty minimal problems since deploying IPv6 on my
stuff and none of the web sites I host have noticed any significant =
problems.
Owen
