[AusNOG] IPv6 is hard.

[Joseph Goldman]

I definitely agree it is not something to be ignored, and sooner rather 
than later would be better, I was simply pointing out that those in 
smaller teams with limited time and limited resources, with no official 
deadline or impending threat looming over us in the immediate future, 
for some, it has taken a lower priority.

It's definitely something *I* want to do, and would gladly do it next 
week, but in some business there are more pressing matters at hand, 
specifically right now (for me and the team I work with), still managing 
the ACCC regulation changes on TADSL services.

I also happen to be in as you point out a fairly good position of having 
a fair amount of spare IPv4. But this is my unique position.

On 21/07/12 10:41 PM, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 08:45:28PM +1000, Joseph Goldman wrote:
>> I think it's important to remember that we are on this list for
>> reasonable discussion among professionals, delving into arguments
>> and sarcasm won't benefit the discussion.
>>
>> I also think it's safe to say that IPv6 is possible, but may not be
>> practical for all. Mostly, such as my case, limitations on resources
>> to implement such as current hardware and time. As Don was
>> mentioning, those outfits with limited resources in the interest of
>> lowering costs as much as possible to stay cut-throat competitive,
>> IPv6 implementation just isn't high on the list due to the knowledge
>> it will still take a long time yet before IPv4 is dropped in any
>> meaningful way.
> The problem is that IPv6 *isn't* something you can ignore until you feel the
> economic climate is more prepared.  Now that we've hit the first stages of
> IPv4 address exhaustion, some of your competitors (regardless of what
> industry you're competing in) will start to see the benefits of IPv6, and
> they *will* start to invest the money in it.  Then, when the *real*
> crunch-time comes, and you either can't get public IPv4 addresses at *all*,
> or you have to pay more and more money for them, the realisation will hit
> that avoiding IPv6 isn't a cost minimisation exercise, it is instead a means
> of greatly increasing your costs in the future.
>
> Now, you personally might be lucky and never have any need of further IPv4
> addresses.  Good for you.  But plenty of organisations *do* need further IP
> address space, and they're now starting to have some trouble getting IPv4.
> Those organisations which have adopted IPv6 will be cool, and those who have
> not will either die or very hurriedly start supporting it when the cost of
> obtaining additional IPv4 addresses exceeds the cost of deploying IPv6.
> This will drive IPv6 rollout and adoption in ways that mirror the takeup of
> the Internet itself -- plenty of people who don't see it coming will be
> flattened.  Far more quickly that you would expect, IPv6 support will go
> from "damn that's going to cost some coin, maybe next year" to "the company
> can't operate because some vital new service is IPv6 only and I'm going to
> have to explain why I didn't see this coming and plan for it".
>
> Yes, it sucks.  It'd be great if Someone Else had worked out all the kinks
> with IPv6 and the rest of us could just sit back and do nothing and have it
> all just roll itself out automagically.  But given that has practically
> *never* happened in my career, and I'm willing to bet that it's happened
> rarely enough in yours, I'm a little surprised that you'd think that IPv6
> will ever be any different to everything else you've ever had to deal with.
>
> - Matt
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20120721/477da6cd/attachment.html>