On Thu, 12 Jan 2012, Andy Davidson wrote:
On 12 Jan 2012, at 22:23, Sebastien Lahtinen wrote:
I normally agree with you, Seb :-) but I disagree here.
No greenfield project in 2012 should not be dual stack
Let's remember it's not really a greenfield project, at least not in the
sense it relies on significant parts of old networks.
because IPv6 is not an experiment any more.
It may be to your/my/our networks, but there are plenty of networks which
aren't quite there yet.
Further, it is extremely likely that the Olympic Games will be staged
*after* the RIPE region v4 runout (and the APNIC v4 runout was long
ago), so there is an increasing risk that users will be visiting
services relating to the Olympics through CGNs - debugging performance
issues relating to overloaded or broken CGNs is going to be pointless,
but debugging reachability issues related to IPv6 solves the problem for
ever.
Users don't need to know what IPv6 is, if we do our job properly. The
challenge (largely solved) is for all this to 'just work', as you
comment. CGN and v4 life extension makes that harder, end-to-end and
dual stack makes that easier.
Indeed it does make it an easy option for companies to work around v6
deployment and is a 'bad thing'.
If I was going back four years and was responsible for BT's network
strategy, I'd be jumping up and down about it. Alas we're in 2012 and I
suspect bigger problems taxing their minds are about handling the
capacity.
We probably agree that they should have supported IPv6.. but it's an issue
that should have been discussed a long time ago.
seb
