[96860] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nathan Ward)
Mon May 28 23:03:03 2007
In-Reply-To: <20070528210316.R10387@calis.blacksun.org>
From: Nathan Ward <nanog@daork.net>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 15:02:07 +1200
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 29/05/2007, at 1:35 PM, Donald Stahl wrote:
>
>> For core links it should IMHO be mostly possible to keep them IPv4/
>> IPv6
>> dual-stack. When that is not the case one can always do minimal
>> tunnels
>> inside the AS. Same for getting transit, it doesn't have to be
>> directly
>> native, but when getting it try to keep the AS's crossed with a
>> tunnel
>> for getting connectivity to a minimum (See also MIPP*).
> Actually setting up a dual-stack infrastructure isn't very difficult-
> anyone who has done so would probably agree. The problems (as has
> already been pointed out) come from management, billing and the like.
Don't forget customers. Turning this thing on for customers appears
to be non-trivial in many cases.
> Am I off my rocker?
Slightly, but not entirely.
Testing is already happening, and has been for a long time. More and
more end users are having a play with the various transition
technologies, etc.
Having said that, the first work that I have seen in the "Make it
easy for real-world end users" space is the "Great IPv6 Experiment"
stuff.
With Vista and OS X turning on IPv6 natively, as well as Vista's love
for 6to4 and Teredo, are your helpdesk staff skilled enough to deal
with problems if say, Google or Yahoo! were to turn on AAAA records
tomorrow? This is here now, and if we want this to happen without
pain, I think we need to be acting.
...or is your helpdesk process to turn IPv6 off?
(When I say your, I mean the reader, not you specifically Donald)
--
Nathan Ward
