> On 20 May 2016, at 13:20 , Pete Stevens <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I've just quizzed one of our customers for their experiences, they > adopted an IPv6 internal LAN early on and have had a fairly rough ride. > > Note - they chose not to have external IPv6, only on their internal LAN. > So you join the VPN and get a v6 only internal route which gives you > access to internal services, reserving v4 only for the public internet. > They started this in 2012 which was brave.
Or a decade late, but OK. >>> the stability of most V6 implementations still leaves a hell of a lot to be >>> desired. >> -v ? > > Biggest issues : > > Vyatta couldn't do IPv6 cluster failover Fortinet firewalls have perfomrance > issues with high volumes of IPv6 > traffic. > AWS doesn't support EC2 at all, this is a major issue for them. > Dynamic DNS filled up with AAAA records > They couldn't give Android devices fixed addresses. > Some devices can't do IPv6 at all or badly (projector with no support, > Cisco switches that seemed to have ssh servers that would eventually > stop). > Happy Eyeballs having a very high hit rate of picking exactly the wrong > protocol and route to use. > > > So for them it's largely failed to work out, the lack of v6 in AWS > coupled with their Fortinet firewalls collapsing under high traffic load > resulted in this comment from them. > > [tom] 0/10 would not recommend. OK, I see. What of this is still true for them today in 2016 (apart from AWS)? Did they report this in 2012? Have they made more careful planning decisions since when upgrading gear? > Within Mythic Beasts on the server side it's been much less painful, but > largely we have Linux servers, Linux clients and if it's not Linux it's > almost certainly somebody elses problem. ;-)
