[156436] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steve Meuse)
Tue Sep 18 10:59:09 2012
In-Reply-To: <86lig7cvpw.fsf@seastrom.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:58:40 -0400
From: Steve Meuse <smeuse@mara.org>
To: "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs@seastrom.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Robert E. Seastrom <rs@seastrom.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
Well spoken RS, I'm cutting and pasting this one to my account team(s). Far
too many discussions about this with them recently. (really, you're just
*now* getting v6 to work on bundled interfaces?)
-Steve
