On 5 Sep 2014, at 18:22, Neil J. McRae <[email protected]> wrote: > On 05/09/2014 17:47, "Will Hargrave" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > What I can also tell you is that V6 generated harder things to fix than > CGN has done. Quite obvious really, as one controls everything in CGN but > one can¹t say the same about controlling other folks V6 networks. When > something in the V6 network breaks in my experience its typically dealt > with at a slower rate than V4, having dual stack at home I ended up > turning it off because a bunch of sites that had V6 broke it and then took > along time to fix it, that¹s just not a scenario I want to unleash on the > customers I want to serve. Lets not mention the spam that comes through V6 > either again because people have done half baked deployments. >
Many UK Universities (and other Universities around the world) provide dual stack. Indeed at Loughborough University we provide dual stack on nearly all VLANs. That’s approximately 48K edge ports and around 10K wireless clients all with IPv6 and we have very few reports of problems with IPv6 brokeness. I hear lots of excuses here why IPv6 can’t be done yet other European countries seem to be getting along fine and adopting IPv6 at a much faster rate, and the education sector has been doing IPv6 for years. Whilst I don’t work in the ISP industry I can only assume this is because of the aggressively competitve nature of the sector (which limits the ability to innovate). Regards Scott Armitage
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
