[182156] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Hotels/Airports with IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Jul 11 00:56:04 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <DA95983C-71F1-4AA6-B431-2F2FFD515F33@beckman.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 21:55:53 -0700
To: Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
How can it be a large, complex deployment if it=E2=80=99s greenfield.
In that case, you need to acceptance test the IPv4 just as much as IPv6.
The difference is that you don=E2=80=99t have to rerun your acceptance =
tests 6-months later when you have to implement IPv6 in a rush because =
you suddenly learned that your major client gets major suckage on IPv4 =
due to their provider having put them behind the worst CGN on the =
planet.
Owen
> On Jul 10, 2015, at 15:08 , Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
>=20
> 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
>=20
> -mel via cell
>=20
>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
>>=20
>>=20
>> In message <A24F7CF2-0CD8-4EBA-A211-07BC36988A87@beckman.org>, Mel =
Beckman writ
>> es:
>>> Limited municipal budgets is all I can say. IPv6 has a cost, and if =
they
>>> can put it off till later then that's often good politics.
>>>=20
>>> -mel via cell
>>=20
>> IPv4 has a cost as well. May as well just go IPv6-only from day one =
and
>> not pay the IPv4 tax at all.
>>=20
>> The cost difference between providing IPv6 + IPv4 or just IPv4 from
>> day 1 should be zero. There should be no re-tooling. You just
>> select products that support both initially. It's not like products
>> that support both are more expensive all other things being equal.
>>=20
>> Mark
>>=20
>>>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 2:42 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> In message
>>> <CAL9jLabA5nO6YQ99CRhDgRTHTSB0VgP3GDNeu-VU2-4R_1_pLQ@mail.gmail.com>
>>>> , Christopher Morrow writes:
>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> =
wrote:
>>>>>> I working on a large airport WiFi deployment right now. IPv6 is
>>> "allowed =3D
>>>>> for in the future" but not configured in the short term. With less
>>> than 10,=3D
>>>>> 000 ephemeral users, we don't expect users to demand IPv6 until =
most
>>> mobile=3D
>>>>> devices and apps come ready to use IPv6 by default.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> 'we don't expect users to demand ipv6'
>>>>>=20
>>>>> aside from #nanog folks, who 'demands' ipv6?
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Don't they actually 'demand' "access to content on the internet" ?
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Since you seem to have a greenfield deployment, why NOT just put =
v6 in
>>>>> place on day0? retrofitting it is surely going to cost =
time/materials
>>>>> and probably upgrades to gear that could be avoided by doing it in =
the
>>>>> initial installation, right?
>>>>=20
>>>> +1 and you will most probably see about 50% of the traffic being =
IPv6 if
>>>> you do so. There is lots of IPv6 capable equipment out there just
>>> waiting
>>>> to see a RA.
>>>>=20
>>>> Mark
>>>> --
>>>> Mark Andrews, ISC
>>>> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
>>>> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
>>=20
>> --=20
>> Mark Andrews, ISC
>> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
>> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
