Netflix banning HE tunnels

Fri Jun 10 18:27:35 UTC 2016

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 23:57:08 -0400, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:

>>> zero interoperability, and no viable migration paths, it's a Forklift
>>> Upgrade(tm).
>>
>> You say that with such confidence! Doesn't make it true.
>
> https://archive.psg.com/120206.nanog-v4-life-extension.pdf
>
> randy, who works for the first isp to deploy ipv6 to customers

Also, the Randy who closed the ngtrans working group "declar[ing] victory"  
yet having produced nothing. Dual stack is not a transition plan, and  
never has been. It's a key factor in why we have such a fractured adoption  
today.

If you've been completely ignoring IPv6 for 20 years, then it is indeed a  
steep learning curve[*]. If you haven't been upgrading equipment, shame on  
you! Otherwise, you've ended up with "IPv6 Capable(TM)" completely by  
accident, but you still have to deploy IPv6. On the scale of a large  
service provider (or enterprise, for that matter), that's not a trivial  
process. While *I* could upgrade the tiny island of the multi-national  
corp I work for [10 people, 1 (linux) router, 36 public facing networks]  
overnight via a plan drawn on the back of cocktail napkin over a long  
lunch, doing that over the entire global network is not going to happen  
overnight; the other offices have much more involved infrastructure.

I'd like to hear from the Comcast's, TWC's, and Uverse's just how many  
man-hours were involved in the planning, testing, training, deployment,  
and troubleshooting of their IPv6 "transition". (I have a ppt of the  
Uverse 6rd plan. I cannot imagine that mere document was produced in lass  
than a day, not counting the data behind all those slides.)

[*] As I joked with a business partner recently as he had to learn "all  
this crap about IPv6" for his CCIE recert, "you're a DoD contractor.  
They've had an 'IPv6 Mandate' for decades. I still have the memo." That  
mandate is for "IPv6 Capable"; they don't have any actual v6 anywhere.