NANOG 40 agenda posted

Tue May 29 04:25:21 UTC 2007

> Don't forget customers. Turning this thing on for customers appears to be 
> non-trivial in many cases.
The only way I can see a customer being affected is if their CPE does 
IPv6, it's enabled on the CPE, and it's enabled on their network. If all 
of those are true- then the customer probably has enough smarts to make 
it work. That said- AT&T hosting sales said "What's IPv6" (several people 
there did) and my own ISP who I consider to be technically with it said 
they're not even sure the're going to offer it.

> Slightly, but not entirely.
> Testing is already happening, and has been for a long time. More and more end 
> users are having a play with the various transition technologies, etc.
Perhaps my testing is an exception that proves the rule. For my 
personal network it consisted of enabling an IPv6 and a tunnel on my old 
2621 and enabling IPv6 on my FreeBSD desktop. That was it. I can reach 
www.kame.net via IPv6 transparently- along with several other boxes via 
IPv6 through ssh.

The Windows boxes on my network that don't support IPv6 but use the same 
nameservers get to the IPv4 version of www.kame.net with no issues. The 
IPv6 enabled Windows boxes also work just fine.

I guess I'm curious where people are having problems. Running dual stack 
in my personal network has not caused a single issue so far.

I've also started moving my company backbone to dual stack with no 
problems so far. The routers and routing protocols have not been an issue. 
My dual stack desktop and the few servers I have running IPv6 have no 
problems communicating via IPv6. The biggest problem so far is figuring 
out who to talk to upstream about IPv6 connectivity.

> With Vista and OS X turning on IPv6 natively, as well as Vista's love for 
> 6to4 and Teredo, are your helpdesk staff skilled enough to deal with problems 
> if say, Google or Yahoo! were to turn on AAAA records tomorrow? This is here 
> now, and if we want this to happen without pain, I think we need to be 
> acting.
I understand what you're saying but there is an option besides setting up 
A and AAAA records for www.google.com. They could set up AAAA records for 
ipv6.google.com and let those of us using IPv6 actually connect without 
having to revert to IPv4 or a proxy.

I'd like to see ipv6.cnn.com, ipv6.google.com, ipv6.yahoo.com, etc. I 
don't see where this would be a problem for anyone except those people who 
explicitly try to connect via IPv6- and those people should really know 
enough to troubleshoot the problem on their own.

-Don