/27 the new /24

Fri Oct 9 20:07:49 UTC 2015

> On Oct 9, 2015, at 10:22 AM, Mike <mike-nanog at tiedyenetworks.com> wrote:
> 
> On 10/08/2015 07:58 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 
>> I can't remember the last time I saw a site stall due to reaching it over IPv6 it is that long ago.
>>> It happens every day for me, which only amplifies my perception that v6 IS NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME.
>> Yet you refuse to troubleshoot your issues with it that are not shared by others and blame the protocol for whatever is probably wrong with your own network. Interesting tactic.
> 
> Thats invalid. It matters not that you claim these isses are not 'shared by others' - they are experienced routinely by others, and it's growing worse as more 'services' are transitioned to 'v6' but then the attendant support such as monitoring and operational knowledge/experience hasn't caught up and those transitioned services fail on v6 silently for long periods of time. That is the majority of the v6 world today and it's useless to claim otherwise.

Permit me to rephrase….

…not experienced by those with functioning networks…

That is… It is not an inherent problem in the protocol, but rather a local misconfiguration  in those networks experiencing these problems.

There is sufficient evidence to back this up as the symptoms describe well known problems with well known solutions. The choice of particular network operators to complain about IPv6 being broken rather than research and apply those well known solutions is, in fact, a problem with those operators and not a problem with IPv6.

Owen