IPv6 Security [Was: Re: misunderstanding scale]
Lee at asgard.org
Tue Mar 25 14:02:59 UTC 2014
On 3/24/14 10:17 PM, "Naslund, Steve" <SNaslund at medline.com> wrote:
>I can easily answer that one as a holder of v4 space at a commercial
>entity. The end user does not feel any compelling reason to move to ipv6
>if they have enough v4 space.
>I can't give my employer a solid business case of why they need to make
>the IPv6 transition.
You may not need to yet. But it would be a good idea to know how long it
would take you to deploy IPv6.
Then think about when IPv6 will be cheaper than IPv4.
(See the poll from NANOG60 for what others think about this:
It might be a good idea to finish in time to save money.
Oh, and if the enterprise cares about latency, IPv6 is better. (NANOG60:
>They already hold enough v4 space and are putting more and more servers
>behind virtual IPs on boxes like the F5 so they are actually gaining on
>the v4 space issue. They see no economic reason to add an additional
>layer of complexity to their network where it is already pretty expensive
>to find savvy staff. Having to find v6 savvy staff is even more
>challenging. Even if the network guys are up to speed on v6 (admittedly
>a lot of the junior guys are not) the server and storage guys have a hard
>time wrapping their minds completely around ipv4.
I bet your staff isn't savvy on lots of things they have to do. I don't
know why IPv6 scares people so much.
"So, will you be providing training on IS-IS?"
"You'll get exactly the same training you got on OSPF when you started."
". . ."
More information about the NANOG