[156427] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert E. Seastrom)
Tue Sep 18 09:25:34 2012
To: Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us>
From: "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs@seastrom.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:21:46 -0400
In-Reply-To: <50560464.8020906@rollernet.us> (Seth Mattinen's message of "Sun,
16 Sep 2012 09:55:00 -0700")
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us> writes:
> I came across these threads today; the blind ignorance towards IPv6 from
> some of the posters is kind of shocking.
There are actually a few good points mixed in there, like the guy who
observes that dual stacking is of limited utility if there are no v4
addresses to be had.
I keep performing this vendor monologue. It goes something like:
What do I mean when I say "it must support IPv6"? I mean two things.
First, full feature parity with IPv4. Everything that works under
IPv4 must work under IPv6. If you have exceptions, you'd better
document them and have a remediation plan (or work-around if it is a
deficiency baked into the standard; there are a few of which I'm
aware). Second, the device must function perfectly in an IPv6-only
environment, with not a hint of IPv4 addressing around. Dual-stack
capability is nice, but should be an easy thing to provide if you can
handle the first two requirements.
Furious scribbling in the 'ol Moleskine invariably ensues. I am not
sure what it is about this set of requirements (which seems so plain
to see that I felt as if I was belaboring the obvious the first time I
brought it up) that seems like a revelation to people in the vendor
space, but apparently it does.
Are *you* doing *your* part? Taken your shoe off and banged it on the
conference room table Khrushchev-style lately?
-r
