On 12 Jan 2012, at 22:54, "Andy Davidson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I normally agree with you, Seb :-) but I disagree here. > > No greenfield project in 2012 should not be dual stack, because IPv6 is not > an experiment any more. I think if this was in prep for the 2016 games one might agree but it's not, and the platform servicing the Olympics was built along time ago, infact I believe alot of it was built even before London had been selected as the host city! > It is production safe in hosting environments. a fraction of the world access the Internet via V6 - it's simply too early to tell what challenges are still to be faced. Hell, we still haven't got all the bugs out of V4! Vendors STILL put out code releases where the V6 functionality clearly has not been tested as well as V4. > 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. Whether this site was dual stack or not, CGNAT was/is/will be inevitable, always has been and always will be. if your strategy is to ignore this then I suspect revenue loss will be in your future. IPV4 will be carrying significant production traffic for the next ten years atleast and users requiring access will grow also, corporations will run it even longer and will want gateway as a service. No I wish I could press a button and everything would be IPV6 but in the meantime we need to keep the traffic flowing.
