On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 01:34:19PM +0100, Jakob Hirsch wrote: > While I understand the concerns, since I was in this situation a > while ago at $ORKPLACE[-1] (you may remember me from your former > employer :), this is OK in the early phase, were you want to make
I do remember ;) > sure that your hotline won't blow up. If you want a significant IPv6 > usage (which we all do, I hope), you'll just start enabling it. We > had several phases, roughly and IIRC: For me personally i have seen strange things happening enabling IPv6 which i wish nobody to debug again - the cups issue was one of the interesting ones. Now i have occasionally the case with an Dualstack WLAN and a IPv4 only Wired connection on the same Debian/Jessie which regularly produce strange failure symptoms which causes me to disable the WLAN is certain environments. > So here we are now, a good six-figure (or maybe even seven by now) > number using IPv6, most without knowing or noticing, without any big > issues rolling in from support. So from my experience I would say: > be bold! Its not a technical problem as i hope anyone understands. Its a marking/psychological problem. And before doing nothing because of beeing afraid of all the things which might happen i'd rather push forward slowly by using some new products or product introduction as the DTAG did. IMHO a very clever thing although for some on this list it is to slow. Put pushing harder might even make it slower. (RFC1925) I fought for enabling IPv6 for a couple of years - then i had the opportunity to a green field ISP and we did dualstack from Day 1 and we had zero problems caused by IPv6. But it was a single CPE Vendor deployment. Now i am with a hosting provider and IMHO the problems are even bigger. Customer dont see the need for even looking at IPv6 and all the IPv6 lan security headache ... Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature