[AusNOG] Why you shouldn't worry about switching to IPv6 now

[Mark Smith]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 01:33:56 +1000
"Samantha" <samantha at smellyblackdog.com.au> wrote:

>  
> 
> Why is it disturbing?
> 
> When at short we all know that we need to make the jump to light speed at some time in the future, but what the article states is quite true in fact – most connections are using nat.  
> 
> The amount of ipv6 hype of late reminds of the year 2000 bug and all the associated bull that went down with it.

Do you have that opinion about Y2K because there where very little
consequences? Perhaps you don't appreciate the amount of work that
occurred *so* there where very little consequences. Lack of (or very
minor) consequences was a sign of success. Surely if you're on
this mailing list you should understand what the Y2K problem was and why
it needed to be fixed.

The IPv6 process also reminds me of what happened during Y2K. Everybody
knew what the problem was and knew how to fix it for many years before
1999. However, it was only about 2 years out from the date that
organisations (or at least the large state government outsourcer that I
was at) started aggressively working on it. Fortunately the specific
problem and the specific fix were simple, the amount of work
created was dictated by how many instances of the problem existed.

IPv6 seems to me to be following a similar time line. Most everybody
has understood what the problem is with IPv4 addresses running out for
a long time. However it was only when IPv4 addresses were foreseeably
going to run out within a shorter term e.g. 2 years or so has the flurry
of activity and serious interest in IPv6 occurred. The one difference
here is that there is no specific date when IPv6 will be necessary to
access something that isn't available over IPv4. I think this is what
is creating the uncertainty as to whether it is necessary to deploy
IPv6 now and also the scepticism as to whether it is necessary to
deploy at all.

I think deploying IPv6 is mainly deploying insurance. It is insurance
against one day being sent a URL in an email that you can't reach
because you've only got IPv4 and it's only reachable over IPv6. It is
insurance against wanting to run an application in the future that
cannot or won't run over IPv4 NAPT. It is insurance for the purpose of
having it available and tested so that the moment you need it is the
moment you have it and can rely on it.

If the risks to your business of not deploying it (e.g. ISP losing
customers to competitors with IPv6), or the consequences and effort to
recover from these sorts of event are high, then the sooner you deploy
IPv6, the better of you are. If the risk is low, and the consequences
and effort to deploy IPv6 when it's necessary for you are low, then
there is less urgent need. The questions for people who consider
themselves to be in the latter category is whether or not they'll
actually have enough time available to deploy it when they need it
(assuming that is also prophesying), and whether they've ensured
they've made a correct decisions about the risks and consequences.


> I realise that YES we are running out of a resource.  Yes I know we need to do something about it, but with ipv6 still in its infancy and the amount of hardware still around from when Noah was a lad, what can we do?  We can’t force the existing customer base to buy new routers for ipv6 when there are hardly any around.  Most firmware is still in beta.
> 

Are you testing it and providing feedback?

Vendors are only providing IPv6 capabilities because demand is being
created for it. That demand is created by saying to vendors, "if it
doesn't do IPv6, or doesn't do it well enough, I'm not buying it", and
just as importantly, not compromising on that.


Read more:
http://www.answers.com/topic/if-you-re-not-part-of-the-solution-you-re-part-of-the-problem#ixzz1JXNxQDO0

>  
> 
> I don’t have cotton wool or anything over my eyes, but the what is written is not disturbing to me and our operation.
> If a customer does want ipv6 we tunnel to it to them anyway
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Samantha
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Tom Storey
> Sent: Thursday, 14 April 2011 7:09 PM
> To: ausnog at ausnog.net
> Subject: [AusNOG] Why you shouldn't worry about switching to IPv6 now
> 
>  
> 
> Is it just me or does anyone else find this article disturbing?
> 
>  
> 
> http://www.techworld.com.au/article/383241/why_shouldn_t_worry_about_switching_ipv6_now/
>