NANOG 40 agenda posted

Tue May 29 16:40:22 UTC 2007

Small clarification.

I'm not either saying "don't deploy dual-stack in servers", not at all. As a
matter of experience, of someone using IPv6 for everything from everyplace
in the world, I don't believe there is so much problem in doing so, neither
so many users will really have any problem, and this has been said by many
folks that tried that in this an many other forums.

Of course, if you do so, make sure to do it correctly, and make sure to pay
the same attention to the global routability of your IPv6 prefix, the same
as you do with IPv4.

I'm sure that more users get actually problems with NAT and the support cost
is much higher than if we start supporting instead IPv6 services.

So, if as a kind of self-assessment, you prefer to use ipv6.yourdomain.com
for testing, that's fine, but it is not what the users should look for
(something different), so make sure to make it just a starting point.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> Fecha: Tue, 29 May 2007 18:09:17 +0200
> Para: Nanog <nanog at nanog.org>
> Conversación: NANOG 40 agenda posted
> Asunto: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
> 
> What I'm saying, across different postings, is that I'm not advocating for
> dual-stacking existing services immediately (there is no need for that, no new
> advantages at this point). It is nice to have, but I agree that we must go
> step by step and time will tell us when moving on or even retiring IPv4 in
> some cases (which will happen in a much longer term in most of the networks).
> 
> The reasons why your connectivity, being dual-stacked at the client and server
> side fail, are typically:
> 1) Server side not well connected to IPv6, or not connected at all and having
> an AAAA. Blame the server operator !
> 2) Client side connected to a network that indicates "I've an IPv6 router and
> this is your prefix", but it is not the case. Blame the network administrator
> !
> 3) Client side/network correctly configured but poor connectivity due to lack
> of good native connectivity, a stable tunnel, or using 6to4 or Teredo and
> relays not correctly/enough deployed. Blame operators for not operating
> correctly IPv6 transition !
> 
> We can compare 1, 2 and 3 to the same situation if, in the IPv4 world, the
> IPv4 connectivity gets broken. So let's stop blaming IPv6. Blame ourselves. We
> didn't our work very well, not yet up to now.
> 
> Obviously, networks route IPv6 today, so resilience is not the same as if
> there is an improper configuration in IPv4, but again, this is what *we*
> operators, need to sort out soon.
> 
> We need to deploy more relays while we are unable to deploy more native
> connectivity (of course this one preferred).
> 
> We need to be exactly the same of serious with IPv6 routing as we do with
> IPv4.
> 
> Then, with a very small effort from our side, automatic transition traffic
> will not be black holed, and there will be a reason to start moving on faster
> on configuring AAAA in all the content providers.
> 
> By the way as I indicated a few postings ago, 3) can be sorted out very easily
> at each ISP network with a very low cost and no impact at all. You don't need
> to deploy, in case you can't, IPv6 at all across the rest of your network,
> just a static tunnel/s from the 6to4/Teredo Relay to any upstream or set of
> them. And this warrantees your customers IPv6 connectivity and improve their
> peer-to-peer experience even if different transitions mechanisms are being
> used among the peers.
> 
> Can we do that ?
> 
> By the way, even if we don't do that, peer-to-peer traffic is already taking
> advantage of IPv6, even only with transition mechanism such as 6to4 and
> Teredo.
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> De: David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org>
>> Responder a: <drc at virtualized.org>
>> Fecha: Tue, 29 May 2007 08:22:35 -0700
>> Para: <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
>> CC: Nanog <nanog at nanog.org>
>> Asunto: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
>> 
>> Jordi,
>> 
>> On May 29, 2007, at 6:50 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>>> This is useless. Users need to use the same name for both IPv4 and
>>> IPv6,
>> 
>> Why?
>> 
>> The IETF chose to create a new protocol instead of extending the old
>> protocol.  Even the way you ask for names is different (A vs. AAAA).
>> Why should anyone assume a one-to-one mapping between the two
>> Internets based on those protocols?
>> 
>>> they should not notice it.
>> 
>> They shouldn't, but they will.  Having had the fun of trying to
>> figure out why I lost connectivity to a site (then realizing it was
>> because I had connected via IPv6 instead of IPv4 and IPv6 routing ...
>> changed), the current IPv6 infrastructure is, shall we say, not quite
>> production ready.
>> 
>>> And if there are issues (my experience is not that one), we need to
>>> know
>>> them ASAP. Any transition means some pain, but as sooner as we
>>> start, sooner
>>> we can sort it out, if required.
>> 
>> Forcing end users to be exposed to the pain of transition?  This is
>> the techno-geek mindset, not the critical communications
>> infrastructure-geek mindset.  Guess which one is more appropriate to
>> the Internet today?
>> 
>> Rgds,
>> -drc
>> 

**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.