North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted

  • From: Donald Stahl
  • Date: Tue May 29 00:28:00 2007

Don't forget customers. Turning this thing on for customers appears to be non-trivial in many cases.
The only way I can see a customer being affected is if their CPE does IPv6, it's enabled on the CPE, and it's enabled on their network. If all of those are true- then the customer probably has enough smarts to make it work. That said- AT&T hosting sales said "What's IPv6" (several people there did) and my own ISP who I consider to be technically with it said they're not even sure the're going to offer it.

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.
Perhaps my testing is an exception that proves the rule. For my personal network it consisted of enabling an IPv6 and a tunnel on my old 2621 and enabling IPv6 on my FreeBSD desktop. That was it. I can reach www.kame.net via IPv6 transparently- along with several other boxes via IPv6 through ssh.

The Windows boxes on my network that don't support IPv6 but use the same nameservers get to the IPv4 version of www.kame.net with no issues. The IPv6 enabled Windows boxes also work just fine.

I guess I'm curious where people are having problems. Running dual stack in my personal network has not caused a single issue so far.

I've also started moving my company backbone to dual stack with no problems so far. The routers and routing protocols have not been an issue. My dual stack desktop and the few servers I have running IPv6 have no problems communicating via IPv6. The biggest problem so far is figuring out who to talk to upstream about IPv6 connectivity.

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.
I understand what you're saying but there is an option besides setting up A and AAAA records for www.google.com. They could set up AAAA records for ipv6.google.com and let those of us using IPv6 actually connect without having to revert to IPv4 or a proxy.

I'd like to see ipv6.cnn.com, ipv6.google.com, ipv6.yahoo.com, etc. I don't see where this would be a problem for anyone except those people who explicitly try to connect via IPv6- and those people should really know enough to troubleshoot the problem on their own.

-Don