NANOG 40 agenda posted

Wed May 30 19:35:52 UTC 2007

I agree with John here. I am not going to speak for content providers, but I
have heard them raise serious business concerns about the lack of
infrastructure deployment. They make their living on responsiveness, and an
extended transition with its associated unpredictability without native
routing potentially impacts business (ie: so far behind their peers in
perceived quality that finances are impacted). 

This is a grand game of chicken. The ISPs are refusing to move first due to
lack of content, and the content providers are refusing to move first due to
lack of infrastructure. We are going to hit the end of the IPv4 pool and
have a panic driven deployment rather than a well planned one. 

I just hosted a session with enterprises that are actively deploying IPv6 to
start distilling best-practices, and it is clear that something similar is
going to have to happen for ISPs. I am not ready to organize something just
yet, but if you are interested I will hang around the beer-n-gear.

Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog at merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu] On Behalf Of
> John Curran
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 7:20 AM
> To: Donald Stahl
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
> 
> 
> At 9:21 AM -0400 5/29/07, Donald Stahl wrote:
> >>At this point, ISP's should make solid plans for supplying
> >>customers  with both IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity, even
> >>if the IPv6 connectivity is solely for their web servers and
> >>mail gateway.  The priority is not getting customers to
> >>use IPv6, it's getting their public-facing servers IPv6
> >>reachable in addition to IPv4.
> >Exactly.
> >
> >So many people seem to be obsessed with getting the end users connected
> via IPv6 but there is no point in doing so until the content is
> reachable. The built in tunneling in Windows could be a problem so let's
> start by using different dns names for IPv6 enabled servers-
> mail.ipv6.yahoo.com or whatever. Can anyone think of a reason that a
> separate hostname for IPv6 services might cause problems or otherwise
> impact normal IPv4 users?
> 
> There are already folks who have run separate hostnames for
> IPv6 services, and the fact that we can still exchange email on
> mailing lists (lots of email ;-) ) means that it doesn't seem to
> be a problem.
> 
> The next phase of experimentation which needs some real-world
> experience is using both IPv4 and IPv6 to reach existing servers,
> to learn all about the various "does and doesn't work" scenarios
> that can be setup with/out IPv6 transit/tunnelling, with IPv4 only
> and IPv4/IPv6 DNS servers, and the resource record preference
> rules in various resolver and IP stacks...
> 
> So, what I'm advocating for is getting servers on both IPv4 and
> IPv6 asap, and figuring out how to do it safely with the same DNS
> names.  I'm not saying that a good starting step is running IPv6
> internal to your own network with separate hostnames, but we
> all have to move past that pretty quickly.
> 
> /John