[184601] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: /27 the new /24
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Oct 9 16:07:57 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <5617CDB8.6010201@tiedyenetworks.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 16:07:49 -0400
To: Mike <mike-nanog@tiedyenetworks.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Oct 9, 2015, at 10:22 AM, Mike <mike-nanog@tiedyenetworks.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> On 10/08/2015 07:58 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>=20
>> I can't remember the last time I saw a site stall due to reaching it =
over IPv6 it is that long ago.
>>> It happens every day for me, which only amplifies my perception that =
v6 IS NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME.
>> Yet you refuse to troubleshoot your issues with it that are not =
shared by others and blame the protocol for whatever is probably wrong =
with your own network. Interesting tactic.
>=20
> Thats invalid. It matters not that you claim these isses are not =
'shared by others' - they are experienced routinely by others, and it's =
growing worse as more 'services' are transitioned to 'v6' but then the =
attendant support such as monitoring and operational =
knowledge/experience hasn't caught up and those transitioned services =
fail on v6 silently for long periods of time. That is the majority of =
the v6 world today and it's useless to claim otherwise.
Permit me to rephrase=85.
=85not experienced by those with functioning networks=85
That is=85 It is not an inherent problem in the protocol, but rather a =
local misconfiguration in those networks experiencing these problems.
There is sufficient evidence to back this up as the symptoms describe =
well known problems with well known solutions. The choice of particular =
network operators to complain about IPv6 being broken rather than =
research and apply those well known solutions is, in fact, a problem =
with those operators and not a problem with IPv6.
Owen
