[182146] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Hotels/Airports with IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mel Beckman)
Fri Jul 10 20:07:58 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 00:07:50 +0000
In-Reply-To: <20150710222724.D0E6D32B49CB@rock.dv.isc.org>
Cc: North American Network
Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Mark,
Few acceptance test regimes cover established feature testing. It's just to=
o expensive. For example, an acceptance test of a firewall installation doe=
s not include validating the DPI implementation. Government and enterprise =
buyers rely on certifications, such as ICSA for firewalls, IPv6Ready for IP=
v6, and standards compliance, such as IEEE 802.11ac for wireless. =20
Instead, an acceptance test exercises the full system to ensure that it hit=
s predetermined performance benchmarks, meets all the customer's functional=
requirements, and is secure. If one of the several vendors in such a proje=
ct unilaterally changes components to enable unspecified protocols or featu=
res, testing won't line up with the implementation, and people will be very=
unhappy with the presumptuous vendor.=20
Having deployed many IPv6 upgrades in legacy networks, I don't see deferrin=
g IPv6 as a net higher cost. It would be nice to have now, but, as they say=
, the customer is always right.=20
-mel via cell
> On Jul 10, 2015, at 3:27 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
>=20
>=20
> In message <DA95983C-71F1-4AA6-B431-2F2FFD515F33@beckman.org>, Mel Beckma=
n 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.
>>=20
>> -mel via cell
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Mark
> --=20
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
