There have been IPv6 for dummies sessions at many past NANOGs. If NANOG is willing to provide time and space for them at future events, I will be happy to conduct the tutorial sessions.
Owen On Feb 9, 2011, at 10:30 AM, Mike Lyon wrote: > With the recent allocation of the last existing IPv4 /8s (which now kind of > puts pressure on going v6), it would be wonderful if at the next couple of > NANOGs if there could be an IPv6 for dummies session or two :) > > -Mike > > > On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Jack Bates <jba...@brightok.net> wrote: > >> On 2/9/2011 12:03 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> >>> The thing that terrifies me about deploying IPv6 is that apps >>> compatible with both are programmed to attempt IPv6 before IPv4. This >>> means my first not-quite-correct IPv6 deployments are going to break >>> my apps that are used to not having and therefore not trying IPv6. But >>> that's not the worst part... as the folks my customers interact with >>> over the next couple of years make their first not-quite-correct IPv6 >>> deployments, my access to them is going to break again. And again. And >>> again. And I won't have the foggiest idea who's next until I get the >>> call that such-and-such isn't working right. >>> >> >> What scares me most is that every time I upgrade a router to support needed >> hardware or some badly needed IPv6 feature, something else breaks. Sometimes >> it's just the router crashes on a specific IPv6 command entered at CLI (C) >> or as nasty as NSR constantly crashing the slave (J); the fixes generally >> requiring me to upgrade again to the latest cutting edge releases which >> everyone hates (where I'm sure I'll find MORE bugs). >> >> The worst is when you're the first to find the bug(which I'm not even sure >> how it's possible given how simplistic my configs are, isis multitopology, >> iBGP, NSR, a few acls and route-maps/policies), it takes 3-6 months or so to >> track it down, and then it's put only in the next upcoming release (not out >> yet) and backported to the last release. >> >> >> Jack (hates all routers equally, doesn't matter who makes it) >> >>