[AusNOG] IPv6 excuses

[Mark Andrews]

In message <COL403-EAS4054D3CE508AC2177B4464AF7420 at phx.gbl>, Shane C writes:
>
> Excuse my ignorance, but what’s the “real” argument against rolling out
> IPv6?

We can't see a immediate return on deplying it and we have to train
staff.  We have to spend time checking that everything works and
we may need to replace equipment / software because we failed to
specify that it need to work for with IPv6 when we procured it.

There isn't a immediate return.  It is a long term investment which
will ultimately simplify the network and restore lost functionality.
There will be hickups because people can't forsee everything.  It
takes time to get to the critical mass where people can start to
depend upon that restored functionality being available.

As a publisher you may not see a direct return as ISP's are forced
to absorb the costs of your reluctance to deploy IPv6.  However as
a publisher you have staff and they have equipment that occasionally
needs to be reached from outside and NAT makes that hard to impossible
at times.

Ultimately is makes networks easier to manage and easier to debug
problem.

> There are clearly costs associated with prolonging the life of IPv4 in
> things like CGNAT. Other than labour, which you’re paying for anyway, is
> there any significantly measurable costs of just knuckling down and
> getting it done? Are those costs really higher than the cost of IPv4 and
> the tech/engineering being invested to avoid v6?

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org