mike at mtcc.com
Tue Sep 18 15:52:30 UTC 2012
On 09/18/2012 08:08 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> We've been doing this for years on both Juniper & IOS/IOS-XR devices. Must be someone else.
> We do run into this whole feature parity thing often. The vendors seem to be challenged in this space. I suspect a significant part of it is they don't actually *use* IPv6 internally or in their lab. We have been operating our network with IPv6 for many years now. I believe in most cases our connection to the management plane go IPv6 only as well.
> It's been fun to see the few SSH over IPv6 defects and other elements arise as time has passed, but those days are over. It's just tiring now and no longer amusing. (hey you kids, get off my lawn?).
Of course they're challenged. There's a finite amount of dev they can
do at any one time, and they go for what is going to make revenue. If
you tell them that the way to your wallet is to implement some new
feature in v4 and you're not emphatic that it be v6 also, they are going
to do the utterly predictable thing. If you really want to make progress
instead of bellyache, list off the features you need to run your network.
Better yet, deploy v6 instead of saying that you'll only do it when it's
perfect. That just tells your account critter that v6 isn't important to
you. I'll bet you'll find features that you want that are v6 specific
that you'd open your wallet for *way* before features that don't interest
you that you're requiring in the name of parity.
More information about the NANOG