[182141] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Hotels/Airports with IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Andrews)
Fri Jul 10 18:29:25 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 10 Jul 2015 22:08:15 +0000."
<DA95983C-71F1-4AA6-B431-2F2FFD515F33@beckman.org>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 08:27:24 +1000
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
In message <DA95983C-71F1-4AA6-B431-2F2FFD515F33@beckman.org>, Mel Beckman writ
es:
> There is most certainly a cost to IPv6, especially in a large, complex
> deployment, where everything requires acceptance testing. And I'm sure
> you realize that IPv6 only is not an option. I agree that it would have
> been worth the cost, which would have been just a small fraction of the
> total. The powers that be chose not to incur it now. But we did deploy
> only IPv6 gear and systems, so it can probably be turned up later for
> that same incremental cost.
>
> -mel via cell
Since you have IPv6 capable gear your acceptance testing should be
including the IPv6 side of it so there are no saving there if you
are doing your job correctly. It is hard to go back to the suppliers
N years down the track and then say "This gear isn't working for
IPv6" and request a return / fix.
Turning on IPv6 later will ultimately cost more than doing it from
the start. You have to manage the potential disruption. The
difference in perception between "teething troubles" and "you may
break the service" is huge. If you havn't done proper acceptance
testing or missed something there will be replacement costs.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
